- This topic is empty.
- Posts
THE BEST ANSWER?? You've got to be joking surely.
Quote Although science and understanding have grown, so have our egos.
Opinion is irrelevant. David has already agreed with that.Quote 100 years ago, many would have said just as above. 100 years ago, we “knew” the universe didn't have a beginning. Science “knew” the Bible was wrong when it said: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” And today, science knows the first verse of the Bible doesn't contradict true science.
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.The earth did not form until the universe was about 9 billion years old. You can hardly claim that was ‘in the beginning’ (listen for sound of goal posts being uprooted).
Quote Who knows what science will know tomorrow?
And who knows what direction scripture will have to be distorted in next to make it match that refining scientific model?Quote Regarding the question raised, about letting there be light….
If we take the view that we're witnessing events from the earth, (as an earth observer) even though there were none back then, then, the order of events and of creation agree with science. When it says “let there be light” it appears that light began to shine through the clouds, as the atmosphere thinned.
What clouds?? Yes we have clouds today. No they never block out the sun. The atmosphere thinned? Is that in Genesis? This is adding rather a lot of imaginary meteorology to an imaginary tale. Just like the way cold-reading psychics make themselves look impressive by fooling people into thinking they have revealed less information than they really have, except this is adding mythology to mythology.Quote The sun is much older than the earth, and light would have existed before this happened, but it seems the events are being described as if to someone who would have witnessed them on earth.
…As long as you invent opaque clouds to add to ‘god’s word’.
Quote And, when we look at it that way, the order of scientific creation, is actually correct, and miraculously so, just like that first verse, that was written when no one had any clue about these things.
Rubbish. In Genesis, the earth is created (1:1) before light (1:3), sun and stars (1:16); birds and whales (1:21) before reptiles and insects (1:24); and flowering plants (1:11) before any animals (1:20). The order of events known from science is in each case just the opposite. David has tried to discredit the order of days, but now he seems to want to restore the order. What a moveable feast is this apologetics business. The groundstaff must be alarmed at the constant appearance of new goalpost holes all over the field.Stuart
Quote (TimothyVI @ Aug. 07 2008,22:34) Quote (seekingtruth @ Aug. 07 2008,12:32) Tim,
Does the OT condone divorce? Wm
Of course it does.
But I do not understand what that has to do with
the things that disturb me the most.Why do you think it is honorable to stone your family to death because they discussed another God with someone?
Why do you think it is honorable to stone someone to death for something as menial as picking up sticks?
Why do you think that it is honorable to stone your child to death because he talked back to you?
To even insinuate that God commanded these things, dishoners God.
Tim
And if an office manager drowned his entire staff as a disciplinary measure, would there not be a competency review at least?Stuart
Quote (seekingtruth @ Aug. 07 2008,12:32) Tim,
In my opinion as soon as you begin eroding the scriptures you step on a slippery slope, losing your foundation and given time you will be left doing what is right in your own eyes, but that is your choice, hope it turns out well for you (no sarcasm).Wm
Hi Seekingtruth,I know. I have heard that same exact line recited by my pastor. It is a rehearsed line for anyone that questions anything in the bible.
But Christians that believe that God could command all of the atrocities that were attributed to Him in the bible, scare me.
Christians that believe that there was nothing wrong with commanding all of those deaths, scare me.
All these people need to do is think that God told for them to kill me, and they would with absolutely no hesitation or conscience.If you say, I know that God would not command that, how can you even be sure, if you believe that He commanded it countless times before.
Tim
Wow! now I'm scary…
Rehearsed? first time I've said it, must of heard it somewhere.
Well as I said your free to believe what you will but I truly do hope things turn out well for you.
Wm
Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 07 2008,17:11) Quote (seekingtruth @ Aug. 06 2008,18:32) What part of the OT dishonors God, specifically Wm
The list would stretch for pages. But let's start with one, and go from there.Exo 21:20 “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged.
Exo 21:21 But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.So, do you think a God of love would say it is OK for a slave to beaten to death as long as the death does not occur for a day or two? I mean, after all, a slave is just property after all, less than human.
So where in there was God condoning beating a slave to death?As I said earlier:
Quote The OT gives instructions for handling situations which due to the hardness of man's heart are going to happen despite having God's approval, or the lack there of. God did say spare the rod, spoil child, I do believe God condones loving correction administered at a level equal to the crime but man in his hardness of heart and with a lack of love will go beyond anything God had “condoned”.
Wm
Quote (TimothyVI @ Aug. 07 2008,17:34) Quote (seekingtruth @ Aug. 07 2008,12:32) Tim,
Does the OT condone divorce? Wm
Of course it does.
But I do not understand what that has to do with
the things that disturb me the most.Why do you think it is honorable to stone your family to death because they discussed another God with someone?
Why do you think it is honorable to stone someone to death for something as menial as picking up sticks?
Why do you think that it is honorable to stone your child to death because he talked back to you?
To even insinuate that God commanded these things, dishoners God.
Tim
21Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law.
The law showed what was required to deserve the promises given by God, faith allows for grace and mercy.I'm not saying God does not command any death in the OT but death from our finite viewpoint may seem to be the worst of things but who are we to judge an infinite God who knows all things.
my opinion – Wm
One last post and I'll let it go, Sometimes cutting out something loved is required for the sake of the whole. If focused on the loss you will miss what has been saved. God takes no pleasure in the death of the unrighteous.
Wm
Quote (seekingtruth @ Aug. 07 2008,08:42) Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 07 2008,17:11) Quote (seekingtruth @ Aug. 06 2008,18:32) What part of the OT dishonors God, specifically Wm
The list would stretch for pages. But let's start with one, and go from there.Exo 21:20 “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged.
Exo 21:21 But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.So, do you think a God of love would say it is OK for a slave to beaten to death as long as the death does not occur for a day or two? I mean, after all, a slave is just property after all, less than human.
So where in there was God condoning beating a slave to death?
Depends. Do you view the bible as the “word of God”? If so, then you must accept that beating of slaves was acceptable because they are merely property (and not really humans). The verses I list show that if they live for a few days after the beating, then all is well. If they die, no problem because it could have been from something else after all.Here's another for you:
Lev 12:2 “Speak to the people of Israel, saying, 'If a woman conceives and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean seven days. As at the time of her menstruation, she shall be unclean.
Lev 12:3 And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.
Lev 12:4 Then she shall continue for thirty-three days in the blood of her purifying. She shall not touch anything holy, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying are completed.
Lev 12:5 But if she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her menstruation. And she shall continue in the blood of her purifying for sixty-six days.Now, tell me why it is not a sexist attitude to declare that a mother tow be unclean for twice as long if the child is female?
seekingtruth wrote:
Quote God takes no pleasure in the death of the unrighteous. Deuteronomy 28:58-63:
“If you do not carefully observe all the words of this law that are written in this book, that you may fear this glorious and awesome name, THE LORD YOUR GOD, then the LORD will bring upon you and your descendants extraordinary plagues—great and prolonged plagues—and serious and prolonged sicknesses. Moreover He will bring back on you all the diseases of Egypt, of which you were afraid, and they shall cling to you. Also every sickness and every plague, which is not written in this Book of the Law, will the LORD bring upon you until you are destroyed. You shall be left few in number, whereas you were as the stars of heaven in multitude, because you would not obey the voice of the LORD your God. And it shall be, that just as the LORD rejoiced over you to do you good and multiply you, so the LORD will rejoice over you to destroy you and bring you to nothing; and you shall be plucked from off the land which you go to possess.”In my opinion the rejoice from the statement is for the most part a juxtapose of the true desire of God from the previous statement (in other words an ironic comparison). However God is opposed to the arrogant and the religious, so yes He probably took some pleasure in destroying them as a nation and removing them from the land where in they had become proud and evil, But does God not say their punishment was beyond what He desired, all God did was remove His protection.
In my opinion – Wm
Quote (seekingtruth @ Aug. 08 2008,01:18) Wow! now I'm scary…
I described the people that scare me.
Christians that have no compassion for the horrific deaths of thousands of people merely because God was supposed to have commanded their deaths.
Never said that you were scary, unless you see yourself among the group that I said scare me.Tim
Tim,
I apologize I was joking around.Well I do not believe God would be a supporter of any atrocities but what one may believe is an atrocity, spanking as an example, another sees as loving discipline. Just to be clear I do not advocate beating children and as my oldest son has told me many times he would have rather have had been beaten then endure our long talks followed by a only slightly painful spanking. But at 29 years old now he knows it was for his ultimate good and I rejoice that though it was hard for me to do, I now have children who understand suffering for an ultimate good.
Wm
I just love my Son, SEEK
There’s not much disciplining about bringing a child up,
its all about lessons TO BE learning,
and I suffer myself ALSO to walk thru them with Him,
rather then to control him with beating THE lIFE OUT OF THEM,
which are boundaries MADE reversed, iN ADVERSARY to god, Basicly made for preventing us from becomeing exposed to internal suffering. (feelings of violated, offended emotions)
And That of not being perfect to the Standards of What is, and was set out to be obxerved, inforced by Laws for us to compared with, Are they righteous?We.. discern the Laws and our crimes, to a taking responsibility for by portions, and really at that point the purpose of change has arrived. Using while learning Good judgments..
School reports give me feed Back on how his attitude is going…pleasant and Happy.
Always holding my atttude as the Mum has got some work to do……before knowing everythungQuote David
Your view does explain alot THANKS! Closest I've seen Yet. Just one last Flaw I have yet seen answered and I have no Idea how it works either? Why is God in Day 4 creating the 2 lights one to govern the day and one to govern the night? This implies the Sun and Moon to me. So where is light coming threw your primorial clouds if no Sun yet created? I truly don't know this so I'm not being critical but you having the best answer yet on the first few days, what is your explaination if possible of this?
If the Earth was Created before Day1 Then the Sun and moon per our scientific view today where all created together in a condensing bombardment of proto-planets?
Is it your view, If this is true and the creation of the 2 lights was just them becoming visible after the clouds disapated. It does seem to help place events correctly. Thank-you my Head-aches seem to be lessening. Almost ALL gone now … KAB-67“And God proceeded to make* the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars.”
And . . . proceeded to make.” Heb., wai·ya′‛as (from ‛a·sah′). Different from “create” (ba·ra’′) found in vss 1, 21, 27; 2:3. Progressive action indicated by the imperfect state.
The Hebrew verb has two states, the perfect state and the imperfect state. The perfect state indicates completed action. The imperfect state indicates incomplete or continuous action, or action in progress. In Ge 1:1 “created” in Hebrew is a verb in the perfect state, showing that the action of creating the heavens and the earth was completed. In Ge 2:2 “proceeded to rest” in Hebrew is a verb in the imperfect state, indicating an incomplete or continuous action, or action in progress. (Compare Heb 4:4-7.) Therefore, in Hebrew, action that took place in the past could be indicated by verbs in the imperfect state if that action is viewed as incomplete, while action taking place in the future could be indicated by verbs in the perfect state if that action is viewed as complete. The imperfect state of the Hebrew verb could be rendered in English by using auxiliary words such as “proceeded,” “went on,” “continued,” etc.
Concerning the fundamental characteristic of the imperfect state in Hebrew, James Washington Watts wrote in his work A Distinctive Translation of Genesis, Grand Rapids, Michigan (1963), pp. 129, 130: “The fundamental characteristic of all imperfects is incompleteness. . . . The incompleteness of these imperfects, when they are in the indicative mood, appears either in a progressive form or a frequentative form. The context is relied upon to indicate one or the other, for the structure of the verb is the same in both cases.
“If the context indicates a single act or state, the force is progressive. The action is pictured in the process of development. In such case the primary idea of the verb in English is not sufficient to convey its full meaning. The addition of an auxiliary like ‘proceed’ or an adverb like ‘gradually’ is needed if the translator sees an occasion for bringing out the full force. When a narrative is unfolding rapidly and the sequence of events is more important than the vivid portrayal of progress in some particular event, the translator may depend solely upon conjunctive adverbs like ‘afterward’ to indicate both sequence and progress. Progress in this case is not brought out fully. There is merely movement from one action or state to another without definite portrayal of progress within the second. The use of this limited translation means that the translator sees no special reason for bringing out the idea of progress more fully at that point. The account in English would become tedious if he did. On the other hand, if the translator sees that the account is enriched by bringing out the full force of the verb, he is at liberty to do so.
“If the context indicates more than one occurrence of the act or state, the force is frequentative. Again the primary idea of the verb in English is not sufficient to convey the full meaning. The addition of an auxiliary like ‘continued’ or an adverb like ‘frequently’ is needed to reveal the full meaning of repetition or customary occurrence.”
Throughout the centuries scholars have been amazed at the capability of the Hebrew language to express past events by using verbs in the imperfect state, and to express future events by using verbs in the perfect state. In an attempt to explain this peculiarity, they developed the theory of Waw Consecutive. Concerning this theory, O. L. Barnes, in his work A New Approach to the Problem of the Hebrew Tenses and Its Solution Without Recourse to Waw-Consecutive, Oxford (1965), pp. 4, 5, wrote: “The matter has been needlessly complicated by the introduction and slavish adherence to the doctrine of Waw Consecutive, or its more ancient forebear Waw Conversive (the latest name proposed for it is Waw Conservative). Very briefly, though there have been a variety of modifications of the theme, this states that the ‘and – Waw ’ו waW – dna‘ eht tcaf ni taht ereh detats si tahw morf tnedive eb lliw ti tsurt I .gniht emas eht ylesicerp ot stnuoma ti ,erofereht ,tluser-dne ni ;noisrevnoc eht etacidni ot rof kool tsum ew ediug ro yek eht si ti tub ,rewop gnitrevnoc siht sah taht ’ו waW – dna‘ eht yllaer ton si ti taht etats ,ytidrusba eht ssap-yb ot tpmetta na ni ,srammarg tnecer emoS .rewop gnitrevnoc egnarts siht sah ’ו waW – dna‘ eht yhw ksa ylthgir yam eW“ :krow sih fo 1 .p no etorw senraB .L .O ,yroeht siht fo ytidilav eht gnidrageR
”.tneserp era tcefrepmI eht ni ו waW eht htiw detaicossa slewov niatrec esruoc fo dedivorp ,asrev eciv dna )stcefrepmI :era yllaer yeht tahw fo daetsni( stcefreP sa nekat ro daer eb dluohs meht fo lla taht setacidni ,esneT tcefreP eht ni breV werbeH a yb dedecerp fi ,esneT tcefrepmI eht ni sbreV werbeH evitucesnoc fo seires a fo tsrif eht erofeb gniraeppa ’ו neither has this power, nor is its assumption necessary to explain the rapid, sometimes abrupt, change in sequence of the Hebrew Tenses. In other words, we may dispense completely with the mythical Waw-Consecutive theory invented by grammarians.”
About one hundred years ago, Benjamin Wills Newton, in his work The Altered Translation of Genesis ii. 5, London, 1888, pp. 49-51, took a firm stand against the theory of Waw Consecutive. After giving a sample translation of Ge 1:3-8, Newton concluded on pp. 50, 51: “Throughout the chapter the future is used to denote progression. In our translation we rightly enough use the past, for we are unable by our future tense similarly to mark progression. There is an expansiveness in the Hebrew use of the future which our future has not; and, consequently, greater accuracy of statement. I may add that there certainly is no room for the theory of Vav conversive in this chapter, and no ground for saying (because our future cannot adapt itself to the elasticity of the Hebrew future) that therefore the Hebrew future is to be shorn of its prerogatives and commuted into a past. It is marvellous that any one should have ventured to propose anything so preposterous.”
Following, we give Ge 1:3-8 from three different versions: Benjamin Wills Newton’s translation, New World Translation and James Washington Watts’ translation.
Benjamin Wills Newton’s translation (1888) (brackets his)
And God proceeded to say [future], Let Light become to be, and Light proceeded to become to be [future].
New World Translation (1953)
3 And God proceeded to say: “Let light come to be.” Then there came to be light.
James Washington Watts’ translation (1963) (brack
ets his)3 Afterward God proceeded to say, “Let there be light”; and gradually light came into existence.
Benjamin Wills Newton’s translation (1888) (brackets his)
And God proceeded to view [future] the Light, that it [was] good; and God proceeded to divide [future] between the Light and the darkness;
New World Translation (1953)
4 After that God saw that the light was good, and God brought about a division between the light and the darkness.
James Washington Watts’ translation (1963) (brackets his)
4 Also God proceeded to observe the light, [seeing] that it was good; so he proceeded to divide the light and the darkness.
Benjamin Wills Newton’s translation (1888) (brackets his)
and God proceeded to call [future] the light Day, and the darkness He called [not “proceeded to call”; the past tense is used] Night; and evening proceeded to be [future], and morning proceeded to be [future] Day one.
New World Translation (1953)
5 And God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a first day.
James Washington Watts’ translation (1963) (brackets his)
5 Then God began to call the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. Thus there came to be an evening and a morning, even one day.
Benjamin Wills Newton’s translation (1888) (brackets his)
And God proceeded to say [future] Let there become a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it become divisive between waters and waters.
New World Translation (1953)
6 And God went on to say: “Let an expanse come to be in between the waters and let a dividing occur between the waters and the waters.”
James Washington Watts’ translation (1963) (brackets his)
6 Then God continued, saying, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, also let there be a separation between the waters.”
Benjamin Wills Newton’s translation (1888) (brackets his)
And God proceeded to make [future] the firmament, and proceeded to divide [future] between the waters which [are] below in relation to the firmament and the waters which [are] above in relation to the firmament;
New World Translation (1953)
7 Then God proceeded to make the expanse and to make a division between the waters that should be beneath the expanse and the waters that should be above the expanse. And it came to be so.
James Washington Watts’ translation (1963) (brackets his)
7 Accordingly, God proceeded to divide the waters which were under the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and gradually it came to be so.
Benjamin Wills Newton’s translation (1888) (brackets his)
and God proceeded to call [future] the firmament Heavens; and evening proceeded to become [future] and morning proceeded to become [future] Day second.
New World Translation (1953)
8 And God began to call the expanse Heaven. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a second day.
James Washington Watts’ translation (1963) (brackets his)
8 Thereafter God began to call the expanse Heavens. Thus there came to be an evening and a morning, a second day.
Anyway, as I was saying:
Genesis 1:14-19 describes the forming of the sun, moon, and stars in a fourth creative period. At first glance, this might seem to contradict the foregoing Scriptural explanation. Bear in mind, however, that Moses, the writer of Genesis, penned the creation account from the viewpoint of an earthly observer, had one been present. Apparently, the sun, moon, and stars became visible through earth’s atmosphere at that time.
Quote David has tried to discredit the order of days I've never done that. I've only repeatedly given them credit as being remarkably miraculously accurate given the time this was written.
Quote Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. The earth did not form until the universe was about 9 billion years old. You can hardly claim that was ‘in the beginning’ (listen for sound of goal posts being uprooted).
The point stu, as you know, is that the Bible was accurate and knew what science did not, until very very recently, that the universe, the earth, etc, had a beginning.
Of course, the Bible account isn't highly detailed. It doesn't say the when the universe was created or the earth, but only that in the beginning, the heavens and the earth were created. This statement is true, although not highly detailed.Stu, I know you desparately want to discredit the Bible. But you are fighting a losing battle. The only things you can pick on, are things that aren't highly detailed and can be taken more than one way. This tells me that your position is week.
Quote …As long as you invent opaque clouds to add to ‘god’s word’.
Out of curiosity stu, what was the atmosphere like back then, millions of years ago?DAVID:
Seems we have 2 threads on same topic. Naturally It will take some time for Me to digest this Volume that you have presented. I still see Flaws but Thanks for your efforts to enlighten. I feel I may yet come to Terms With Genesis Some Day?
Threw your discription I can almost see how God is describing it to Moses and IT IS GOOD
Just one small point you said back on PAGE 4 of this thread to start this:Quote Regarding the question raised, about letting there be light….
If we take the view that we're witnessing events from the earth, (as an earth observer) even though there were none back thenPerhaps you meant no human Obsever but there naturely was One for Sure in that God Witnessed these events related to Moses from HIS Viewpoint ie. And He SAW that it was GOOD. Just being Picky I know, This Problalby not what was entended by your original statement quoted?
I Beleive I can guess the source of your beliefs but I am Glad there is deversity enough to answer “My Questions” in one of Many Faiths. Thankyou Again … KAB-70seekingtruth wrote:
Quote I'm not saying God does not command any death in the OT but death from our finite viewpoint may seem to be the worst of things but who are we to judge an infinite God who knows all things. …”I don’t know god well enough to comment”…
Quote God takes no pleasure in the death of the unrighteous. …”I know god well enough to comment”…
The righteous have it both ways. I guess with god anything is possible.
Stuart
Yes with God all things are possible (I know you did not mean it but I do), despite what you may claim you are standing in judgment of God as obviously you believe you are better suited to decide what is right while not knowing all the facts then God is while knowing all things. I know you do not believe in God but your arguments have to do with the nature of God not His existence.
Hi David
Stu: Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
The earth did not form until the universe was about 9 billion years old. You can hardly claim that was ‘in the beginning’ (listen for sound of goal posts being uprooted).Quote The point stu, as you know, is that the Bible was accurate and knew what science did not, until very very recently, that the universe, the earth, etc, had a beginning.
The bible does not say anything about the universe. You added that bit. You also added the bit about clouds. That is you modern view, although it is absurd. What science ‘does not know’ is not relevant to the question of what the bible does claim to know.Quote Of course, the Bible account isn't highly detailed.
And therefore it is important to invent clouds… and deinvent firmaments.Quote It doesn't say the when the universe was created or the earth, but only that in the beginning, the heavens and the earth were created. This statement is true, although not highly detailed.
No. It does not mention ‘the universe’. It can’t even tell us that the earth was not created in the beginning. On the other hand science can tell us.Quote Stu, I know you desparately want to discredit the Bible. But you are fighting a losing battle. The only things you can pick on, are things that aren't highly detailed and can be taken more than one way. This tells me that your position is week.
It is the details that are its disproof. See The Too Hard Basket for 5 examples. A true scientist is trying to disprove his own hypotheses all the time. Would you claim your dogged defense of the bible is scientific?Quote Out of curiosity stu, what was the atmosphere like back then, millions of years ago?
How many millions of years?Stuart
Quote (seekingtruth @ Aug. 09 2008,07:15) Yes with God all things are possible (I know you did not mean it but I do), despite what you may claim you are standing in judgment of God as obviously you believe you are better suited to decide what is right while not knowing all the facts then God is while knowing all things. I know you do not believe in God but your arguments have to do with the nature of God not His existence.
You know god and you don't know god. That is very politically convenient.Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
