Seven Days: Literally or Figuratively?

[DeletedUser]

You are wrong. Also, you know... h20 = water. Whether it is solid, liquid or gaseous, it is still h20, still water. Still, you are wrong. At the onset of Earth's creation, there was no water on Earth's surface, nor was there an atmosphere where water, in its gaseous state, could reside. Magma on Earth's surface was aplenty, but not water. There was no water in the atmosphere (no atmosphere), no water on the poles (no surface water), no monkeys in green tights, no dancing unicorns, no God...


You are incorrect. Read up on the firmament to obtain an understanding on what Genesis is referring.


Wrong Willy, it is only being debated by those who are ignorant of the ample scientific evidence. Please, extricate your head from your nether regions. The claim was made that science supports the Bible's presentation of Genesis and that there is supporting evidence. One cannot make such a claim and then try to argue that scientific evidence is under dispute, it invalidates the claim. Anyway, no you are simply wrong. The evidence is quite clear that "birds" are descendants of land-based dinosaurs.


lol, did you even pay attention to what you just wrote? Even if we are to take your claim that Man was supposed to be vegetarian, there are still ample plants that "cannot" be eaten by man.

If you did not know that man was originally ment to be vegetarian according to the bible then I know you did not bother to read it.

 

[DeletedUser]

That "Evidence" is always under debate and cannot prove one way or the other.

Again with the "proving" mistake. You are a slow learner.

And WillyPete, water (H20) is not an element, it's a compound of the elements hydrogen and oxygen. Since you appear to lack even basic scientific knowledge it would be better if you didn't post on subjects about which you are ignorant.

Edit ---- btw I think HS was referring to the fact that not all plants are edible, not that he was unaware of the injunction in Genesis.

 

[DeletedUser]

If you did not know that man was originally ment to be vegetarian according to the bible then I know you did not bother to read it.

Umm, Willy, wake up...

Did you forget I don't consider the Bible as evidentiary? When you pose the claim that Man was vegetarian, you're advocating one "contested" interpretation of the Bible, but I don't follow "any" interpretation of the Bible, thus my point of stating, "claim," in that I find your claim to be just that - devoid of facts or evidence. I occasionally participate in pointing out facets of Bible passages to illustrate contradictions, scientific ball-drops, and people's exegetical fallacies, but I definitely do not recognize the bulk of it as scientifically factual and particularly do not adhere to the interpretation that vegetarianism was mandated by God at the onset (as it was not -- Genesis 1:29 merely indicates plants are food, it doesn't forbid the consumption of animals. An omission is not a commandment).

I examine biological evidence that indicates we are (and have been) genetically engineered to eat meat and plants, but mainly meat. Now, we could have a fun little argument about how Man "evolved" from vegetarianism into omnivorism but, if I recall, you think evolution is "the Devil," so I can't very well see a discussion on that front.

Anyway, you're intentionally avoiding the inconvenient points I presented in all my posts on this thread in regards to the original post. Please look up the phrase, "cognitive dissonance." You're amply demonstrating it and once again attempting to derail a discussion.

Stay on topic --- Seven Days: Literally or Figuratively?

 

[DeletedUser]

I just find the entire concept of scriptural literalism so bizarre. Faith in a god is one thing, but unfailing faith in the authors, compilers, editors, and translators of a book is just such a ridiculous concept that I can't believe so many people feel so strongly about it that they don't believe their own reason and senses.

 

[DeletedUser16008]

I just find the entire concept of scriptural literalism so bizarre. Faith in a god is one thing, but unfailing faith in the authors, compilers, editors, and translators of a book is just such a ridiculous concept that I can't believe so many people feel so strongly about it that they don't believe their own reason and senses.

I also don't understand it either not in the literal sense. I call it the lemming effect.

 

[DeletedUser30834]

I'm not going to go line for line like before, it's taking too much time to go through these. Here are the highlights.

I wish you wouldn't force me to do this Sumdum I get no pleasure from it and please remember I did say I do not wish to go here and only do so because you warrant an comprehensive reply.

The name is sumdumass. It has a specific meaning and is a contraction between two words. Use the full name or not at all please.

There is not much about Genesis that is correct in its order but lets go through it anyway.

So you really think that God even though he be omnipotent looks like us ? one of the most inefficient self supporting lifeforms on the planet ? Man is the least able mammal ever to walk this Earth without using tools. Without dominating and manipulation the world around us man would not have survived, and that he created woman after of course man had to be first ? does this seem intelligent to you ? why not a hermaphrodite ? or the ability to change sex ? And again there is too much evidence to suggest that nature has a way of dealing with this.

The bible said he made us in his image. Does that mean we look exactly alike or are exactly alike? Obviously since we are not omnipotent all knowing beings-No. But the bible also said he gave us dominion over everything which kind of implies that we would need to work at it. Yes, this seems intelligent to me because I have seen what happens to lives where there doesn't seem to be much purpose to it.

I put it to you this little ditty was purely a fabrication of the Male domination of the society at that time nothing more. Male does not come before female. Chickens are a good example, they will change sex from female to male in the absence of a , there are many other examples of this in the animal kingdom but none that im aware of that work in reverse. You can even affect the sex of certain species by temperature before hatching and has been observed and recorded many times. A Virgin komodo dragon for instance on its own will lay eggs and form its own colony. I have actually seen this documented evidence for myself on Rinca where they had monitored a lone young female over many years on an uninhabited outer island only to lay eggs and actually have them hatch and create a whole new colony.

No if anything Eve would have come before Adam not after. And being Gods image is human not sexual in its basis there is no reason to suppose God was anything but a sexual and certainly not like Adam.

But i digress and please lets not get into Adam and Eve but rather stick to the topic at hand.

Creating a mechanism for the natural continuation of a species or life form sort of falls along the lines of creation wouldn't you think? Or are you saying that because parthenogenesis happens in animals, it means humans are capable of it too and that means Genesis is wrong? As far as I know, Genesis only says God created woman from man and there is only one claimed situation of natural parthenogenesis in humans and that would be the Virgin Mary (unless you consider God real and having had sex with her). I am aware that via techniques involved in stem cell manipulation scientists are able to artificially manipulate human eggs into parthenogenesis- but I am not aware of any fertile eggs brought to term.

Lets be totally honest here Genesis is basically baby talk, it is not even correct on the most basic level let alone high school and the author whoever it was did not even have an understanding of the world around him. It certainly wasnt divine inspiration that put pen to paper ( so to speak ) it is terrible in the way its constructed with constant errors in what must come before the other.

Again, you are assuming the world was created or evolved (whatever way to describe it being in the present observable state) they way you understand it and that the way you understand it is not just a result of creation.

As I have said before I really didn't wish to go into this as i knew where it would lead. No disrespect to you but it would be better not to argue black is white further with me. I have no wish to bring out the big guns and start listing countless findings and proof supporting all my points that highlight the flaws in Genesis 1 but I shall if required.

Even if you shouted from the top of the world, you are missing the point. Nothing you have submitted shows that evolution proves creation wrong. All it does is show that evolution is the most likely natural explanation. I am not arguing that creation is right, just that evolution or science does not disprove it.

**

OK lets go with this paradox your presenting for a moment.

Genesis 1 is the History of creation as told or written by God Himself. In it many aspects are back to front. God knows this but instead of ( being all powerful ) creating the laws of physics and the like to run with his explanation he chooses otherwise. In fact he does the very opposite with the laws of nature and physics and at the same time tells the story of how it actually was completely differently even though as man discovers everything around him and the order of it to be otherwise, as God knows he will.

So God intentionally creates a situation that brings his story of creation into very obvious disrepute and at the same time imbides man with the ability and intelligence to disprove his story and thereby discrediting his very existence and credibility.

lol.. you answered your own question within your question. If god did create everything and did so backwards or out of order then why would he be confined to the restrains he created until after he created them? And if he is all powerful and did create it all, why would he be limited to his limitations on us? Here is the problem, you are assuming that a law like no one is allowed to own another human (slavery) is always present so the acts practiced by some colonial settlers were always in violation of a law. We could probably agree that it is immoral to ever own a slave, but obviously most of recorded history had a different idea on the concept.

But seriously, what makes you think God would not create something to throw his words into question? He tests people all throughout the bible. He allows disease and sickness, death and hardship to exist.

Nevertheless im impressed with your conviction and leap of faith to fill in these gaps and errors and come up with what can only be described as out there reasoning Sumdum.

Let us just leave this topic that we shall agree to disagree, unless you can come up with some solid argument that does not include something such as whimsical fictitious creatures such as angels and the like that cannot be proven and have not one shred of evidence in the whole history of man other than writings by people that in all honesty could have been nothing more than a control ploy or drug induced visions at the time.

Sure, but lets remember, nothing in science disproves anything unless it can directly test it. And just because something can happen one way, does not mean that it can not happen any other way.

 

[DeletedUser]

I think that a big part of the problem with the early Bible (especially Genesis) is that there wasn't a written language back then. If you've ever played the game Operator or Telephone to some people, the problem should be obvious. For a long time, stories had to be passed on orally from one generation to the next. In that game, a person whispers something to the person next to him/her, who whispers it to the next person, and down the line. The last person says out loud what was whispered, and usually has nothing to do with the original statement. If one or two sentences can be mixed up like that in a matter of minutes, I'm sure that the old legends would change even more over centuries, millenniums, etc.

 

[DeletedUser16008]

Again, you are assuming the world was created or evolved (whatever way to describe it being in the present observable state) they way you understand it and that the way you understand it is not just a result of creation.

Even if you shouted from the top of the world, you are missing the point. Nothing you have submitted shows that evolution proves creation wrong. All it does is show that evolution is the most likely natural explanation. I am not arguing that creation is right, just that evolution or science does not disprove it.

I have shown step by step the Genesis 1 which is attributed directly to Gods explanation and no other is totally incorrect and mixed up. Forgetting about evolution completely there is an order of how things came about. We KNOW this and we have unrefuted PROOF of dates and periods in time, fossils, carbon dating, a mass of Archiological findings, biological data to name a few and huge amount more. There is no point me spamming with links and papers and findings because you wont read them anyway but they are there in abundance and i suspect you also already know that

If you cannot or do not believe in Genesis 1 as how it took place everything else in the bible is moot. If the word of God is shown to be completely wrong everything else is brought into question. You must see that.

You have chosen not to refute any of my points on Genesis and i can imagine why and you are now reverting back to. Its a story in a book and whatever evidence is presented evens mountains in it youd still prefer to believe in a man made 3000 year old manuscript that gets everything upside down and incorrect about pretty much everything we have learnt since and yet no matter how outlandish and wrong it is shown to be somehow the programming overrides all. Unbelievable

**

lol.. you answered your own question within your question. If god did create everything and did so backwards or out of order then why would he be confined to the restrains he created until after he created them? And if he is all powerful and did create it all, why would he be limited to his limitations on us? Here is the problem, you are assuming that a law like no one is allowed to own another human (slavery) is always present so the acts practiced by some colonial settlers were always in violation of a law. We could probably agree that it is immoral to ever own a slave, but obviously most of recorded history had a different idea on the concept.

I had a feeling youd come back with that old line which is why i gave you the excuse ive heard most every time i have this discussion.If in doubt throw the God does what he wishes into the equation. This is absolutely the definition of being in denial even with the evidence mounting against every year there is this almost obsessive clinging onto an ideal that is based on absolutely nothing....

But seriously, what makes you think God would not create something to throw his words into question? He tests people all throughout the bible. He allows disease and sickness, death and hardship to exist.

Sure, but lets remember, nothing in science disproves anything unless it can directly test it. And just because something can happen one way, does not mean that it can not happen any other way.

Look, this testing ground im always hearing about. This is a cop out for people rather than face the world and all its warts it makes people feel better to put the responsibility on something other than just the way the world is so God is used as the excuse and the whipping boy and blame rather than accept it is just life, nothing more. Every time the question is asked why God would allow suffering etc the answer comes back as its all part of God testing ..... This is about the most insulting excuse i think someone can be given. It totally cops out and simply means this... there is no reason it just happens and of course that is the bare truth and most likely explanation yet nope even here the God factor has to be used as an excuse..... this is brainwashing propaganda and mass deception based on peoples desperate wish to believe there is a reason for crap happening to them. So sad and i understand the need for comfort but piling it all on to Gods will is frankly an insult to peoples intelligence.

One more thing I shall address you correctly Sumdumass if you will stop avoiding the real highlights of a topic. Which here is about God creating the world in 6 days. I have shown consistently the gaping holes in this and how it is said to have occurred by God himself no less, yet you ignore the real highlight and focus on trivial comments and my star trek footnote.

Pull yourself together and use that brain matter I know you have to prove your Genesis 1 correct and the flaws in my presentation. Not farcical leaps of one sci fi theory to another that Gene Roddenberry would have approved of.

So far as i can see there is evidence amassing only one way here vs whimsical wishing that a 3000 year old book is correct over everything we have since learnt since then.

I get that people are generally scared of dying and accepting their lot here is nothing more than a simple born live die cycle but it dosnt have to mean it is the end. It also dosnt mean there has to be a being responsible for creating everything as complicated as .. well everything

The 6 day theory is neither literal or figurative it is a simple ill informed work of fantasy with plenty of evidence to support debunking it and absolutely no evidence supporting it but mass and desperate hope that there is a reason for us being and this fairly story is correct despite everything pointing to it being false .... so very very sad

 

[DeletedUser]

Look, this testing ground im always hearing about. This is a cop out for people rather than face the world and all its warts it makes people feel better to put the responsibility on something other than just the way the world is so God is used as the excuse and the whipping boy and blame rather than accept it is just life, nothing more. Every time the question is asked why God would allow suffering etc the answer comes back as its all part of God testing ..... This is about the most insulting excuse i think someone can be given. It totally cops out and simply means this... there is no reason it just happens and of course that is the bare truth and most likely explanation yet nope even here the God factor has to be used as an excuse..... this is brainwashing propaganda and mass deception based on peoples desperate wish to believe there is a reason for crap happening to them. So sad and i understand the need for comfort but piling it all on to Gods will is frankly an insult to peoples intelligence.

The "testing ground" is not a biblical teaching. The reason why there is suffering is a result of sin that we inherited from Adam and Eve. If you need some one to blame, Satan is the culprit. He is the one who tricked Eve into sinning in the first place, who then seduced Adam into sinning.

So God is not at fault. He is the one who is offering us a way out through Jesus Christ.

@HS Genesis 9:1-3 Only after the flood did God allow the eating of meat by man. Really you don't know the bible. You are so against it but you don't know what it teaches.

 

[DeletedUser]

Again with the "proving" mistake. You are a slow learner.

And WillyPete, water (H20) is not an element, it's a compound of the elements hydrogen and oxygen. Since you appear to lack even basic scientific knowledge it would be better if you didn't post on subjects about which you are ignorant.

Edit ---- btw I think HS was referring to the fact that not all plants are edible, not that he was unaware of the injunction in Genesis.

Yes I know its a molecule.
EDIT: TWO hydrogen and ONE oxygen. I wrote that in a hurry sorry for the miss-communication.

The ground was cursed on account of Adam's sin and thorns were made to grow for him. Obviously there was a change in the plant life from the paradise and the time after.

 

[DeletedUser]

@HS Genesis 9:1-3 Only after the flood did God allow the eating of meat by man. Really you don't know the bible. You are so against it but you don't know what it teaches.

Believe me, he knows the Bible.
As a vegetarian I looked into the Biblical stance on the matter a long time ago. God gave herbs to Adam for food, but he did not condemn meat. The dietary prohibitions of Lev & Deut are definitely for meat-eaters. Jesus seems to have been a pesco-vegetarian (unless 'fish' is a mis-translation for 'fish-grass').
But the trump card for me is the 6th Commandment - "Thou shalt not kill". It doesn't say it only refers to humans. So if you eat meat, you are going to hell. No 'ifs' no 'buts' - it's the literal truth of the bible. Even swatting a fly will get you there. I am very fundamentalist on this one.

On-topic. Vic, why even bother? Their eyes and ears are closed. People will believe anything - perpetual motion, get-rich quick schemes, L Ron Hubbard, that Jesus went to America, the moon-landings were fake. There is no story so weird, outlandish and incredible that somebody won't swallow it whole. It's one of the mysteries of human nature. You just have to accept that not all minds work alike, and as long as they hurt no one else, leave them to it. Appeals to reason are futile, as if they were governed by reason they would not have swallowed this guff in the first place.
(bad syntax, I know, but it's late & I'm lazy)

 

[DeletedUser]

Yes I know its a molecule.
One hydrogen and two oxygen. I wrote that in a hurry sorry for the miss-communication.

The ground was cursed on account of Adam's sin and thorns were made to grow for him. Obviously there was a change in the plant life from the paradise and the time after.

Sorry I'm such a nit picker, but that would be 2 hydrogen and 1 oxygen.

 

[DeletedUser16008]

The "testing ground" is not a biblical teaching. The reason why there is suffering is a result of sin that we inherited from Adam and Eve. If you need some one to blame, Satan is the culprit. He is the one who tricked Eve into sinning in the first place, who then seduced Adam into sinning.

So God is not at fault. He is the one who is offering us a way out through Jesus Christ.

@HS Genesis 9:1-3 Only after the flood did God allow the eating of meat by man. Really you don't know the bible. You are so against it but you don't know what it teaches.

Your really quite cute to think this really is fact you know.

That God guy really needs to let things go and stop holding a grudge.

Bless you Willy you do make me chuckle.

On-topic. Vic, why even bother? Their eyes and ears are closed. People will believe anything - perpetual motion, get-rich quick schemes, L Ron Hubbard, that Jesus went to America, the moon-landings were fake. There is no story so weird, outlandish and incredible that somebody won't swallow it whole. It's one of the mysteries of human nature. You just have to accept that not all minds work alike, and as long as they hurt no one else, leave them to it. Appeals to reason are futile, as if they were governed by reason they would not have swallowed this guff in the first place.
(bad syntax, I know, but it's late & I'm lazy)

Yea but its fun to point out just how much guff there really is there even at the beginning of Genesis. Reminds me of an arguement i had with someone once who was colorblind. Even after he realised he was he wouldnt accept certain colours even existed lol

 

[DeletedUser]

Sorry I'm such a nit picker, but that would be 2 hydrogen and 1 oxygen.

Right sorry I should review these before I post them

 

[DeletedUser]

Your really quite cute to think this really is fact you know.

That God guy really needs to let things go and stop holding a grudge.

Bless you Willy you do make me chuckle.

Well if your going to contest something at least you should learn the truth about it first. I have studied evolution and even read Steven Hawking's "The Grand Design" twice.

As far as God holding a grudge, man's sickness and death was not his doing, in fact he allowed his son to die to end it. If I did not believe it I would not follow the bible.

IMO its takes blind faith to believe in evolution, and the big bang, to account for the complexity of creation.

 

[DeletedUser16008]

Well if your going to contest something at least you should learn the truth about it first. I have studied evolution and even read Steven Hawking's "The Grand Design" twice.

As far as God holding a grudge, man's sickness and death was not his doing, in fact he allowed his son to die to end it. If I did not believe it I would not follow the bible.

IMO its takes blind faith to believe in evolution, and the big bang, to account for the complexity of creation.

What the truth is everyone has to decide for themselves, I prefer to draw my own conclusions rather than have them dictated to me.

We are not discussing evolution or the big bang or Satan or anything else here just Genesis. Faith is what you have, I do not.

If you have something to add re Genesis and the points I highlight as incorrect then go right ahead refute and bring it.

Your welcome to your belief willy and it would be great if you could support what I have debunked in the order that genesis claims things to have been. Please explain why so much is back to front and so obviously and painfully incorrect because id really like to know. Obviously you believe it so im sure you can also enlighten us with logical sensible rhetoric.

 

[DeletedUser]

IMO its takes blind faith to believe in evolution, and the big bang, to account for the complexity of creation.

The facts and theories of evolution are not belief-based. Again, with the desperate efforts to paint science as a religion and scientists as apostles. Seriously Willy, you need to stop that. You also need to stay on topic.

 

[DeletedUser]

I think that a big part of the problem with the early Bible (especially Genesis) is that there wasn't a written language back then. If you've ever played the game Operator or Telephone to some people, the problem should be obvious. For a long time, stories had to be passed on orally from one generation to the next. In that game, a person whispers something to the person next to him/her, who whispers it to the next person, and down the line. The last person says out loud what was whispered, and usually has nothing to do with the original statement. If one or two sentences can be mixed up like that in a matter of minutes, I'm sure that the old legends would change even more over centuries, millenniums, etc.

Good point, but still an incorrect assumption. The early accts of the Bible were not an Oral History passed from generation to generation. It was given by God (dictated) directly to one man who wrote it down. I have to research it, but IIRC it was Moses on Mt Sinai after the Exodus. Moses went up the Mt more than once and spent a great deal of time there receiving instruction from God directly (according to the accts in Exodus).

I'm sure there WAS an Oral History that was passed on, but Genesis is not one of those.

 

[DeletedUser]

Good point, but still an incorrect assumption. The early accts of the Bible were not an Oral History passed from generation to generation. It was given by God (dictated) directly to one man who wrote it down. I have to research it, but IIRC it was Moses on Mt Sinai after the Exodus. Moses went up the Mt more than once and spent a great deal of time there receiving instruction from God directly (according to the accts in Exodus).

I'm sure there WAS an Oral History that was passed on, but Genesis is not one of those.

What many modern scholars believe is that Moses was the "author" of the books, but he never wrote them down. There was no written language during the time he was supposed to be alive (judging from historical events mentioned, the Pharaoh at the time, etc.) During his time, he would have had to have written it by carving symbols (hieroglyphics) in stone, and carrying them with him on their journey. Considering the nature of the sybols back then, it would have taken tons of stone to even come close to what was written. What I've heard is that the stories were memorized and passed on for about 15 generations before they were actually written down (by scribes, not authors), and there were at least 2 different versions that had been memorized. They were similar, but many details were different - for example, the order things were made, the number of animals on Noah's ark, etc.

 

[DeletedUser]

Ok, but as I said I'm not positive it was Moses and haven't researched it yet.

It's generally recognized among Believers that God is the Author of the Bible and used men to put His Word on paper, parchment, stone etc.

Also, the Hebrew language (among others) was indeed an established written language in Moses' time. If not how would the Israelites know what was on those two tablets? It would have just been goofy squiggles on stone slabs. And later, during their 40 year "run around the mountain" the scrolls of the Torah were written.

Now that's not to say that everyone could read and write then, but the scholars and leaders were taught those skills.

EDIT:
Just before his death, Moses presented to the priesthood of Israel the five books he had compiled and written (Deut. 31:9). These original Scriptures were stored in the Ark of the Covenant. Under authority of the high priest, scribes made copies of these scrolls.

Deut. 31:9 (KJV) And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi, which bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and unto all the elders of Israel.

"This Law" was the first five books of the Old Testament known as the Torah or Pentateuch.