responding to common objections to bible part 7

[total relism]

Sure.

coming next thread. You just show your indoctrination here. I hope you bring this link up and say you agree with it and its true and you have studied to find out. Otherwise your just showing your accepting of your religion without questioning it and total faith in there theology and inability to question and think for yourself....we shall see.

[HoreTore]

coming next thread. You just show your indoctrination here. I hope you bring this link up and say you agree with it and its true and you have studied to find out. Otherwise your just showing your accepting of your religion without questioning it and total faith in there theology and inability to question and think for yourself....we shall see.

....And you hold a degree in one of the hard sciences, I presume?

[Sigurd]

genesis is only true account of creation
Genesis 1:1
1:1 created. No other cosmogony, whether in ancient paganism or modern naturalism, even mentions the absolute origin of the universe. All begin with the space/time/matter universe, already existing in a primeval state of chaos, then attempt to speculate how it might have “evolved” into its present form. Modern evolutionism begins with elementary particles of matter evolving out of nothing in a “big bang” and then developing through natural forces into complex systems. Pagan pantheism also begins with elementary matter in various forms evolving into complex systems by the forces of nature personified as different gods and goddesses. But, very significantly, the concept of the special creation of the universe of space and time itself is found nowhere in all religion or philosophy, ancient or modern, except here in Genesis 1:1.

Woah there M8.
Gen 1:1 is no more than a chapter heading and does in no way identify the universe as its topic. Gen 1:2 is the first Scripture to be considered in the creation story.

[HoreTore]

It's also false in its assertion, of course, as several religions have ex nihilo creation myths.

Here, have an example.



Sometimes I wish I was a christian fundamentalist preacher. It must be awesome to know that you can say whatever nonsense you want, and none of your followers will ever attempt to check the validity of the claims you make.

[Kadagar_AV]

It's also false in its assertion, of course, as several religions have ex nihilo creation myths.

Here, have an example.



Sometimes I wish I was a christian fundamentalist preacher. It must be awesome to know that you can say whatever nonsense you want, and none of your followers will ever attempt to check the validity of the claims you make.

I am glad you repulsed this wish and instead went on to be a teacher for the younger kids.

[total relism]

Woah there M8.
Gen 1:1 is no more than a chapter heading and does in no way identify the universe as its topic. Gen 1:2 is the first Scripture to be considered in the creation story.

interesting, i have never heard that idea before. I do disagree as that would make only genesis of all the book 66 to have as title to it. Not to mention a simple reading of it clearly states heavens and earth and in the beginning, time/space/matter. But the fact being made was time/space/matter and the creation of all three.

It's also false in its assertion, of course, as several religions have ex nihilo creation myths.

Here, have an example.



Sometimes I wish I was a christian fundamentalist preacher. It must be awesome to know that you can say whatever nonsense you want, and none of your followers will ever attempt to check the validity of the claims you make.

please show were it includes time/space/matter being created at once.

as for your comment, me thinks you just say this because you clearly have done so with your last post above,so your trying to draw attention away from it. But if your looking for infallible, i promise me or any pastor has no such ability, and if you can show that i was wrong, i thank you and will edit my op.



edit
i just read i dont see creation of time/space/matter in there at all. Please show me if you believe so.

[HoreTore]

Did you bother to read it? Oh well, I guess I'll have to quote the most direct sections, even though the entire thing is ex nihilo creation:

Then there was neither death nor immortality
nor was there then the torch of night and day.
The One breathed windlessly and self-sustaining.
There was that One then, and there was no other.

At first there was only darkness wrapped in darkness.
All this was only unillumined water.
That One which came to be, enclosed in nothing,
arose at last, born of the power of heat.

[total relism]

Did you bother to read it? Oh well, I guess I'll have to quote the most direct sections, even though the entire thing is ex nihilo creation:

I am sorry its not even close and even admits it.clearly states not creation of time space matter, it is a guess of creation and the gods came after creation, matter already there, no origin of time or space.




Then there was neither death nor immortality
nor was there then the torch of night and day.
The One breathed windlessly and self-sustaining.
There was that One then, and there was no other.

At first there was only darkness wrapped in darkness.
All this was only unillumined water.
That One which came to be, enclosed in nothing,
arose at last, born of the power of heat.


so here i see no beginning of time, or space. And not even the very beginning of matter. As there is water and heat [energy] that than i am sure evolves into all matter.


it also says

In whose keeping
Was there then cosmic water


But, after all, who knows, and who can say
Whence it all came, and how creation happened?
the gods themselves are later than creation,
so who knows truly whence it has arisen?


Whence all creation had its origin,
he, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,
he, who surveys it all from highest heaven,
he knows - or maybe even he does not know.

[Sigurd]

interesting, i have never heard that idea before. I do disagree as that would make only genesis of all the book 66 to have as title to it. Not to mention a simple reading of it clearly states heavens and earth and in the beginning, time/space/matter. But the fact being made was time/space/matter and the creation of all three.

It really does beg the question to why Genesis does not come with an introduction like all other books in the Bible. You incorrectly states that because there are no header verses in the other 65 books genesis 1 doesn't need one either.
Most books do have a header verse such as: "and God spake to Moses using these words:" (paraphrasing) or The words of Jeremiah, or the vision of Isiah. Why shouldn't Genesis have one? It really needs something like: The words that God spake unto Moses concerning the creation of heaven and earth.

If you have a look at the Hebrew bible, you'll notice that "heaven" used in verse 1 is the same as used later in verse 8 (Šāmáyim), which should indicate that genesis chapter 1 concerns the creation of our world with its dry land and the air (water) that surrounds it.
The narrative explains the creation as viewed from the perspective of being on or close to the earth. It is a far stretch to attribute heaven in verse 1 to be meaning the entire universe. It is something that is wrongly inferred and I am aware that has been the tradition for many years in Christianity. Simply let it go - and the big bang controversy becomes a non issue with Christians.
Genesis talks about the creation of the earth and its immediate surrounding - from the ignition of our star (1:3) to the clearance of the dense dust cloud that surrounds it (1:14-18).

[total relism]

Sorry?

The Bible the only book of Prophecy?

What about all the prophecies that didn't make it into the Bible?

The Bible doesn't even MENTION the destruction of Troy!

Look - I'm a Christian - but you're just talking out of the your fundament-alist.

I am sorry but i am not sure what your saying so i will respond to what i think your arguing, that the bible is not the only religious book of Prophecy, and it does not Prophecy because it does not mention the fall of troy.


could you name another book with Prophecy,clear fulfilled Prophecy? a religious book claiming to be gods word? specific Prophecy like the bible has?


troy? why must it? if it was only a book of Prophecy and mentioned everything in future, than you could ask this. But it is gods word to us on salvation with Prophecy in it. Having it not mention one thing [it does not about of allot of things to come] does not take away from what it does.

I see you are unable to interpret Indian poetry.

I am not surprised.

than by all means please interpret it to say just what id does not say. I feel like im talking with Muslims about the Koran here. Please show me how to inteprit it so it says what is not here [absolute origin of space/time/matter/energy] and does not say the gods were created after and there was already matter and energy and gods created after.

It really does beg the question to why Genesis does not come with an introduction like all other books in the Bible. You incorrectly states that because there are no header verses in the other 65 books genesis 1 doesn't need one either.
Most books do have a header verse such as: "and God spake to Moses using these words:" (paraphrasing) or The words of Jeremiah, or the vision of Isiah. Why shouldn't Genesis have one? It really needs something like: The words that God spake unto Moses concerning the creation of heaven and earth.

If you have a look at the Hebrew bible, you'll notice that "heaven" used in verse 1 is the same as used later in verse 8 (Šāmáyim), which should indicate that genesis chapter 1 concerns the creation of our world with its dry land and the air (water) that surrounds it.
The narrative explains the creation as viewed from the perspective of being on or close to the earth. It is a far stretch to attribute heaven in verse 1 to be meaning the entire universe. It is something that is wrongly inferred and I am aware that has been the tradition for many years in Christianity. Simply let it go - and the big bang controversy becomes a non issue with Christians.
Genesis talks about the creation of the earth and its immediate surrounding - from the ignition of our star (1:3) to the clearance of the dense dust cloud that surrounds it (1:14-18).

Just saying to claim its a header verse would go against the bible more than constant with.


you said

" It really needs something like"

but it does not, the other books of moses start that way, not genesis. I think genesis was edited by Moses but was around before him, the focus is not moses but creation of time/space/matter in genisis 1.


you said

" Simply let it go - and the big bang controversy becomes a non issue with Christians. "


I will have to stop here, as i see your a old earth/evolutionist christian. I do not wish to show what i think that your reitpriting the bible to match a unbiblical idea [big bang millions of years etc] i dont wish to argue this point as i think it may effect your faith [not my goal]. I think a clear Reading of genesis 1 will be constant with what i said.



But as to my op, would you say that genesis does not tell the origin of time/ space/matter? even if we assume Genesis 1 only speaks of earth as you say? only this would conflict with my op.

[Papewaio]

....And you hold a degree in one of the hard sciences, I presume?

There is no plural in hard sciences. As spoketh by the hollowed Dr Rutherford "Physics is the only real science. The rest are just stamp collecting"

And as it has been written it must be so.