Was the world created millions and millions of years ago, part 2?

[Thinkingstuff]

He does much more than that. God revealed how He created us and a common ancestor with chimps wasn't mentioned. You seem to have an aversion to speaking plainly.

I will answer your question plainly. Do I believe God created man from the dust of the ground and breathed life into him? Yes I do.

Have I ever looked at the chemical composition of clay and compared it to my chemical composition? No, I have not.

Will you answer those two questions plainly, yes or no?

peace to youraying:

I told you I refuse to answer your questions on your terms becuase of the example I gave of the question being asked. Look at the example again and see it is what you are doing.

 

[Revmitchell]

He does much more than that. God revealed how He created us and a common ancestor with chimps wasn't mentioned. You seem to have an aversion to speaking plainly.

I will answer your question plainly. Do I believe God created man from the dust of the ground and breathed life into him? Yes I do.

Have I ever looked at the chemical composition of clay and compared it to my chemical composition? No, I have not.

Will you answer those two questions plainly, yes or no?

peace to youraying:

The answer is no. He does not

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The reason my question is valid is because you are doing much more than simply comparing literature.

You are making assumptions about the accuracy of the bible based on non-biblical literature of the same era.

I am stunned that you don't see the difference. Or maybe you do see exactly what you are doing but won't admit it plainly for some reason.

peace to youraying:

I am comparing literature because its the same literary type. I don't see how you can't see it. I don't consider both Authoritative but just like I don't take song of songs literally (yeah a woman has a bunch of goats running down her head for hair) I don't take the creation account literally. You think your argument follows it doesn't and I don't know how you refuse to admit it.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The answer is no. He does not

Again jumping to conclusions. I've answered clearly. I said I don't know how God created man by what method. If you mean that God uses the elements of the earth to create man yes I believe that. We are after all material. But I'm not a walking piece of clay either. Do I believe God breathed into us a spirit. yes. So your statement doesn't follow either. You just are branding statements willy nilly.

 

[canadyjd]

I told you I refuse to answer your questions on your terms becuase of the example I gave of the question being asked. Look at the example again and see it is what you are doing.

Let's be clear.

These are your questions which you asked me. I answered plainly. Are you able to do the same?

Here, I'll even answer your questions again.

Do I believe God created man from the dust of the ground and breathed life into him? Yes I do.

Have I ever looked at the chemical composition of clay and compared it to my chemical composition? No, I have not.

I am waiting for you to answer your own questions plainly, if you are able.

peace to youraying:

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Let's be clear.

These are your questions which you asked me. I answered plainly. Are you able to do the same?

Here, I'll even answer your questions again.

Do I believe God created man from the dust of the ground and breathed life into him? Yes I do.

Have I ever looked at the chemical composition of clay and compared it to my chemical composition? No, I have not.

I am waiting for you to answer your own questions plainly, if you are able.

peace to youraying:

You're just repeating yourself without comment on my example because that is what you are doing. Did you see my reply to the Rev?

 

[canadyjd]

You're just repeating yourself without comment on my example because that is what you are doing. Did you see my reply to the Rev?

And you are refusing to answer your own questions. I answered your questions plainly. Are you capable of answering your own questions?

Here they are again.

Do I believe God created man from the dust of the ground and breathed life into him? Yes I do.

Have I ever looked at the chemical composition of clay and compared it to my chemical composition? No, I have not.

peace to youraying:

 

[Thinkingstuff]

And you are refusing to answer your own questions. I answered your questions plainly. Are you capable of answering your own questions?

Here they are again.

Do I believe God created man from the dust of the ground and breathed life into him? Yes I do.

Have I ever looked at the chemical composition of clay and compared it to my chemical composition? No, I have not.

peace to youraying:

I specifically said you are asking a question that can be compared to this

ONLY ANSWER YES OR NO. DO YOU STILL BEAT YOUR WIFE? If I answer yes I'm in trouble if I answer no then you assume I use to beat my wife. Its why the 5th amendment was writen not to protect the guilty but the innocent. I believe God made us from Matter which is the same stuff the universe is composed of. I believe he breathed into us a spirit. Or life which is eternal. Do I believe I'm a walking piece of Clay? No. Thats how I answer your question. I will not submit to your premise. Just like Jesus didn't answer the Pharasees on their terms either.

 

[Pastor Larry]

You can ask a historian if you like. You notice I'm not comparing Biblical literature to Greek writings. or Chinese writings. The fact that Abraham comes from Summeria shows he's of the same people group. And though God seperated him out he still holds certain cultural values and norms.

None of which is at issue. But ask any historian: Jewish culture had its own distinctiveness due primarily to its religious cult. But the point is that Genesis was written, at least in part, as a polemic and apologetic for Israel as to their role as God's chosen people as over against other nations.

Also you sould a little smug here:

Yes, I know. That is a major problem.

Not smug at all. The Hebrew text is a major problem for you since you deny the literal interpretation. There is no textual basis on which to do so and that is a major problem.

You obviously are considering the argument with the 24 hour deal because a person who lives in antartica and never left may consider the fact that a day may last three months. You assume their knowledge of the universe is equivelant to ours it is not and obvious by their statements.

Really? YOu think people who live in Anarctica don't have 24 hour days? That is strange. I suppose we could do some research into the matter, but I am pretty the people at the research stations are probably on 24 hour days.

Do you also think the space station inhabitants think the day is one hour long?

 

[Jim1999]

Do I believe God created man from literal "dust"? No. I think that is foolish. I believe the scripture is saying, in symbolic language, that God created man ex nihilo, out of nothing, and indeed breathed into him life. Think of the natural process of all matter breaking down in time; ashes to ashes, dust to dust....It goes through a process called pyrolysis, similar to burning wood: evaporization of water; smoke, the visible result of decomposition; charcoal phase, the remains.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Thinkingstuff]

None of which is at issue. But ask any historian: Jewish culture had its own distinctiveness due primarily to its religious cult. But the point is that Genesis was written, at least in part, as a polemic and apologetic for Israel as to their role as God's chosen people as over against other nations.



Not smug at all. The Hebrew text is a major problem for you since you deny the literal interpretation. There is no textual basis on which to do so and that is a major problem.

Really? YOu think people who live in Anarctica don't have 24 hour days? That is strange. I suppose we could do some research into the matter, but I am pretty the people at the research stations are probably on 24 hour days.

Do you also think the space station inhabitants think the day is one hour long?

I entirely agree with you on this point:

None of which is at issue. But ask any historian: Jewish culture had its own distinctiveness due primarily to its religious cult. But the point is that Genesis was written, at least in part, as a polemic and apologetic for Israel as to their role as God's chosen people as over against other nations.

And is in a sense my point that in doing this they used a similar literature type popular of the day to do so.

Not smug at all. The Hebrew text is a major problem for you since you deny the literal interpretation. There is no textual basis on which to do so and that is a major problem

Its not a problem if I view it as a narrative in the story sense. All stories, fictional included, are narrative and are consistent internally. If I view the Enuma Elish and compare it internally (or to itself) the narative is also consistent but the story isn't taken literally.

Really? YOu think people who live in Anarctica don't have 24 hour days? That is strange. I suppose we could do some research into the matter, but I am pretty the people at the research stations are probably on 24 hour days.

Do you also think the space station inhabitants think the day is one hour long

You're purposely not hearing me. If all you knew was antartica what would you call a day? Especially if you were a primative and knew nothing or little of how the universe worked. Primative man thought the earth was flat.

 

[Pastor Larry]

And is in a sense my point that in doing this they used a similar literature type popular of the day to do so.

But is your point valid? Did they use the same type of literature in the same way? You haven't shown that, and haven't answered (that I Have seen) the key problems with it.

Its not a problem if I view it as a narrative in the story sense.

It is narrative in the story sense. And it is a problem because the narrative communicates six successive 24 hour days.

All stories, fictional included, are narrative and are consistent internally.

Not necessarily.

You're purposely not hearing me.

No, I am hearing you. Disagreement doesn't mean I don't understand. It may, but it may not.

If all you knew was antartica what would you call a day? Especially if you were a primative and knew nothing or little of how the universe worked.

If all you knew were Antarctica, would a day be different? No. Truth is not measured by your knowledge, or primitive Antarcticans. A day is a day, no matter what you believe about it.

Primative man thought the earth was flat.

So? Did that make it flat? Of course not. You seem to think that God wasn't offering some sort of corrective to these false beliefs. And I think that is a major error.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

But is your point valid? Did they use the same type of literature in the same way? You haven't shown that, and haven't answered (that I Have seen) the key problems with it.

It is narrative in the story sense. And it is a problem because the narrative communicates six successive 24 hour days.

Not necessarily.

No, I am hearing you. Disagreement doesn't mean I don't understand. It may, but it may not.

If all you knew were Antarctica, would a day be different? No. Truth is not measured by your knowledge, or primitive Antarcticans. A day is a day, no matter what you believe about it.

So? Did that make it flat? Of course not. You seem to think that God wasn't offering some sort of corrective to these false beliefs. And I think that is a major error.

Yes they communicated in the same way. I'll have to pull out the translators note about those documents from summeria to show you how it was taken.

As far as your bottom point. From a Myth perspective I will say things as they relate to my experience like Jesus telling the story of the prodical. The Characters are fictional the point truthful. I'm saying that if (and my assertion is it is) the creation account is not to be taken literal but from a story perspective (like the prodical) internal to the story I will say a day is 24 hours. Because its not the day thats important but the point of the story which I agree with your polemic assertion. So I'm saying God isn't giving you scientific detail to be looked at critically but making a point. If the writer lived in antartica he may write the samething but use a word reflecting 3 months rather than a 24 hour day. Because a day for him may be 3 months. Because again its not the 6 days which are important but the point God is making.

 

[annsni]

Yes they communicated in the same way. I'll have to pull out the translators note about those documents from summeria to show you how it was taken.

As far as your bottom point. From a Myth perspective I will say things as they relate to my experience like Jesus telling the story of the prodical. The Characters are fictional the point truthful. I'm saying that if (and my assertion is it is) the creation account is not to be taken literal but from a story perspective (like the prodical) internal to the story I will say a day is 24 hours. Because its not the day thats important but the point of the story which I agree with your polemic assertion. So I'm saying God isn't giving you scientific detail to be looked at critically but making a point. If the writer lived in antartica he may write the samething but use a word reflecting 3 months rather than a 24 hour day. Because a day for him may be 3 months.

A day is a day is a day. In Antactica, a day is a day and 24 hours - not three months. A day at the equator is 24 hours too. A day is a day is a day.

Because again its not the 6 days which are important but the point God is making.

Where in Scripture is anything that God said not important? If it's in Scripture, there's a reason for it and it's important. Genesis cannot be construed as anything but narrative - and as such, we cannot look at Genesis 1 and 2 as a "story". The details are just as important as the big picture.

 

[Marcia]

The problem with that of course is that according to the Genesis account the earth was established before anything else in the Universe which runs contrary to what we know from astrophysics.

I can't keep up with this thread!

Then, I would say that astrophysics is wrong. Can they prove what they think about the age of he universe? They don't even think God created anything, do they?

 

[canadyjd]

I specifically said you are asking a question that can be compared to this

ONLY ANSWER YES OR NO. DO YOU STILL BEAT YOUR WIFE?

You are incorrect in your analogy. My original statement was:

canadyjd said: Either you believe God created human beings in the way He has revealed to us, or you believe the theories of men.

That is, without question, a true statement. There are no other options.

If you do not believe what God has revealed to us, the only thing left is to consider the theories of men.

I believe God made us from Matter which is the same stuff the universe is composed of. I believe he breathed into us a spirit. Or life which is eternal. Do I believe I'm a walking piece of Clay? No. Thats how I answer your question.

Then you have believed a theory from a man, not the revelation of God.

See, wasn't that simple?

BTW, you didn't answer the 2nd question which you asked me.

Have you ever compared the chemical composition of clay to your own chemical composition? If you have, please tell us about it.

I will not submit to your premise. Just like Jesus didn't answer the Pharasees on their terms either.

And just like Jesus believed the creation account of Genesis, so do I.

And if I remember correctly, it was the Pharisees that didn't think scripture was good enough the way it was written, either. They had to add all the theories of men to make it better.

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

Do I believe God created man from literal "dust"? No. I think that is foolish. I believe the scripture is saying, in symbolic language, that God created man ex nihilo, out of nothing, and indeed breathed into him life.

Please explain to me how saying God created man from the dust of the ground (which is what scripture says) is "foolish", but saying God created man out of nothing is not "foolish"?

If God can create man from nothing, certainly it isn't "foolish" to believe God can create man from the dust of the ground, is it?

peace to youraying:

 

[Thinkingstuff]

A day is a day is a day. In Antactica, a day is a day and 24 hours - not three months. A day at the equator is 24 hours too. A day is a day is a day.



Where in Scripture is anything that God said not important? If it's in Scripture, there's a reason for it and it's important. Genesis cannot be construed as anything but narrative - and as such, we cannot look at Genesis 1 and 2 as a "story". The details are just as important as the big picture.

You are absolutely wrong. A day on Mars is 24 hours and 39 minutes a day on Jupiter is 9 hours and 55 minutes. A day on Mercury is 179 of our years. So its relative to where you're at. A day is measured by when the sun rises to when it rises again. Or if you're Jewish from when the sun sets to when it sets again. See you guys don't even know how a day is measured and in relation to what. And you claim to understand the bible!

 

[annsni]

You are absolutely wrong. A day on Mars is 24 hours and 39 minutes a day on Jupiter is 9 hours and 55 minutes. A day on Mercury is 179 of our years. So its relative to where you're at. A day is measured by when the sun rises to when it rises again. Or if you're Jewish from when the sun sets to when it sets again. See you guys don't even know how a day is measured and in relation to what. And you claim to understand the bible!

Who said we're talking of Mars or Jupiter or Mercury?

We're talking Earth here.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You are incorrect in your analogy. My original statement was:

That is, without question, a true statement. There are no other options.

If you do not believe what God has revealed to us, the only thing left is to consider the theories of men. Then you have believed a theory from a man, not the revelation of God.

See, wasn't that simple?

BTW, you didn't answer the 2nd question which you asked me.

Have you ever compared the chemical composition of clay to your own chemical composition? If you have, please tell us about it.And just like Jesus believed the creation account of Genesis, so do I.

And if I remember correctly, it was the Pharisees that didn't think scripture was good enough the way it was written, either. They had to add all the theories of men to make it better.

peace to youraying:

No. They added laws to protect the given law a hedge so to speak.

Clay: Chemically, clays are hydrous aluminum silicates, ordinarily containing impurities, e.g., potassium, sodium, calcium, magnesium, or iron, in small amounts.

The first component is H2O. That is 80-90%. The remaining 10-20% is mostly carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen. After that you have lessor amounts of phosphorous, sulfur, sodium, potassium, chloride, calcium, magnesium.

So there are some similarities but also differences. Especially with the amount of water in our system and oxygen. We don't have silicates. We are carbon based not silicate based.

Strange it doesn't say God used carbon huh? You have to fudge you're science to make your view of the bible fit. Kinda like the Catholics did to Galileo. Don't bother me with the facts type of thinking which always kills me.