Andy I agree with everything you said 100%. My Mom once told me that someone who truly believes, does not need proof. And someone who doesn't, there will never be enough. I thought this thread would be shut down after a couple minutes. But I see it is a testament "no pun intended" to the group to not start slamming one another. This would be a great topic to sit and talk/think about with a pipe and beverage.
Bible App
- Thread starter maxx
- Start date
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
- Status
I disagree, this topic is too volatile. I've been a part of many conversations that try to discuss this with civility, and it always ends the same.
As I suggested in the original post, the Bible is assumed to be common knowledge in Western history of the last 2000 years. So anyone interested in that history would benefit from having read the actual book, regardless of whether you believe its metaphysics. With the free App I mentioned, you can easily compare translations and listen instead of read.
I am not a new earth creationist at all, and not very "spiritual", but someone once shared with me something that I will share with you all.
Ten minutes after God created Adam, how old did he look? Speculating on my part, but maybe 20? He looked 20, but he was only 10 minutes old.
Ten minutes after God created the Earth, how old did it look? Possibly six billion years old?
Ten minutes after God created Adam, how old did he look? Speculating on my part, but maybe 20? He looked 20, but he was only 10 minutes old.
Ten minutes after God created the Earth, how old did it look? Possibly six billion years old?
Conlejm, we do still have to contend with things like starlight, but you can actually build a case that the Earth does not even appear to be very old.
One classic example (or soon will be) is that observations of the aftermath of Mount St. Helens can be used to determine that the Grand Canyon is a result of catastrophic events, and not long age.
We have plenty of examples of recent fossilization, and that fossils only form when animals are rapidly buried, and the DNA fragments in dinosaur bones, and the rapid decay of the genetics of most living things, the existence of certain isotopes with a relatively short half-life, etc...
Like I said we don't have answers for everything, but you don't have to resort to word games to say that it's reasonable to think the Bible is historically accurate from cover to cover.
One classic example (or soon will be) is that observations of the aftermath of Mount St. Helens can be used to determine that the Grand Canyon is a result of catastrophic events, and not long age.
We have plenty of examples of recent fossilization, and that fossils only form when animals are rapidly buried, and the DNA fragments in dinosaur bones, and the rapid decay of the genetics of most living things, the existence of certain isotopes with a relatively short half-life, etc...
Like I said we don't have answers for everything, but you don't have to resort to word games to say that it's reasonable to think the Bible is historically accurate from cover to cover.
Just sharing, Frozen, not trying to convince anyone of anything. Another interesting thing I have heard (and I admit I know as little about astrophysics as I do about creationism) is that all this matter and energy that is pouring into black holes ultimately comes pouring out in some other dimension like a Big Bang sort of event.
On my way to work this afternoon I seen a squirral laying on side of road that was recently hit by car and died. Next to it were two other squirrals that just sat there. They almost look like they were sad. Made me think what if animals actually have more emotion than we think or can understand. One thing about evolution that I have never understood. Something evolves to better itself or to sustain itself, why do we have or need love/emmotion? It seems like it would be an useless part of the human and or animal. Bugs,microbes,ect..dont have it and they do just fine, if not even better.
Anyway sounds like a nice app and I will check out thanks for posting.
Anyway sounds like a nice app and I will check out thanks for posting.
I have always thought that sometime during our evolution we gained awareness of our mortality, and it was then that we gained a soul. That is sort of represented by the story of Adam and Eve.
Emotions are present in animals, but we are the only animals aware of our morality. Meditate a bit on what emotions really are. Well, at least that is what I am doing right now because you have raised a good point that I had not thought of before.
Emotions are present in animals, but we are the only animals aware of our morality. Meditate a bit on what emotions really are. Well, at least that is what I am doing right now because you have raised a good point that I had not thought of before.
conlejm:
It's not uncommon for people to use unconventional thinking in order to rationalize their faith with the world around them, when they're probably just under-informed, and I can be too quick to jump in those circumstances.
No problem. Sorry if my post sounded a little aggressive, I misread the situation a bit.
It's not uncommon for people to use unconventional thinking in order to rationalize their faith with the world around them, when they're probably just under-informed, and I can be too quick to jump in those circumstances.
IMO, it is a misreading of Genesis to assume that it alleges the creation took place only about 6000 years ago. It's too complicated to get into all of the detail, but here are a few quick points:
1. Probably about 99% of the bible covers the period from Abraham forward. Very little is said about anything prior to that. What little is said about that earlier period is sketchy and not clearly translated from the Hebrew in most English versions.
2. The Concordant version, which purports to be an actual word for word translation, instead of an interpretation (which is really what nearly all other versions actually are) translates the first phrase as "In A beginning" rather than In the beginning. This makes sense because what is stated next is actually that the Earth "became a chaos and vacant" rather than "was without form and void". This seems to allude to a cataclysmic event happening sometime prior to where the Genesis narrative begins.
3. There are actually 2 separate accounts in Genesis regarding the origin (creation) of mankind. The Eden story of Adam & Eve in chapter 2 is a separate occurrence from the first creation event of humans in chapter one.
4. Even mainstream science dates the origins of modern civilization to somewhere around 6000 years ago, which is actually congruent with the biblical narrative in that respect.
1. Probably about 99% of the bible covers the period from Abraham forward. Very little is said about anything prior to that. What little is said about that earlier period is sketchy and not clearly translated from the Hebrew in most English versions.
2. The Concordant version, which purports to be an actual word for word translation, instead of an interpretation (which is really what nearly all other versions actually are) translates the first phrase as "In A beginning" rather than In the beginning. This makes sense because what is stated next is actually that the Earth "became a chaos and vacant" rather than "was without form and void". This seems to allude to a cataclysmic event happening sometime prior to where the Genesis narrative begins.
3. There are actually 2 separate accounts in Genesis regarding the origin (creation) of mankind. The Eden story of Adam & Eve in chapter 2 is a separate occurrence from the first creation event of humans in chapter one.
4. Even mainstream science dates the origins of modern civilization to somewhere around 6000 years ago, which is actually congruent with the biblical narrative in that respect.
Most places I've seen scientists agree that around 12,000 years ago is when humans began to switch to agriculture from hunter gatherers and formed societies in the sense that we know them today.
Do you remember that whole "Lilith Fair" concert series back in the late '90s? Well that was named after a character in some ancient Hebrew scripture named Lilith, whom God made at the same time as Adam out of the same clay. She left Adam when she was told he would rule over her. Further legend has it that she mated with a supernatural entity named Samael and became the progenitor of the Nephilim mentioned in Genesis 6. Depending on which translation of the Bible you read, she is mentioned in Isaiah 34:14:
Almost every year you hear of some find breaking the fossil record,or changing something in mainstream science. It's all over the news for a day or so then we go back to the way we were. Similar to the same with cancer cures, hear about them in the news every year, and yet it is still around. I am beginning to not trust scientists that much anymore. It's like a conspiracy wrapped in a conspiracy tucked neatly in a conundrum.
As far as the Torah is concerned, it's a mystical text that was given to Moses. Moses didn't write it. No letters were to be changed. Even the spaces between the Hebrew have specific meanings. The Torah is really a computer program( when I say computer I don't mean it as we think of computer, more as a figure of speech) where number, letters and words are used to unlock mystical understanding and knowledge of the universe. This is a magical text as well as a history.
Yes, but I'm referring specifically to the origins of the modern city-state, which basically sprang up seemingly out of nowhere around 6000 years ago in Mesopotamia. But personally I believe this was only the most recent version of it and that there were older ones.
Yes, the mystical interpretations are much more interesting than the literal ones.
I'm not seeing how that ties into the creationist theory that the earth is only 6,000 years old.
- Status