Regarding 'Creation Stories'

[PruePhillip]

What you choose to see is not especially
relevant to what is actually there beyond
your sight or comprehension.

I will leave it to those who will, to show you the
contradictions.

As for me, I am satisfied that since you cannot see
the problem for "flood" when there is polar ice
more than two million years old, it is no use to
show you anything that does not suit you.

what was a "planet" back then?
was the earth a "planet" back then?

What was flooded in Noah's day?
all the world
what was the "world" back then?

In Jesus day people said the Roman empire was the 'world'
but people knew of other empires - but "world" meant Roman world.

In Assyrian times the "world" was Assyrian, and they didn't know about
other empires.

It's all confusing, but take the time to understand etymology, history,
philosophy, religion, science, nuances of language, and common sense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You would have trouble deciphering ancient hieroglyphics or pictograms?
If it wasn't plain as day you would be stumped?

How about the eytmology of the word Jerusalem in ancient texts:
Ruslam? Is that 'Jerusalem', - no, can't be.
Urasalem, how about that? - no, can't be Jerusalem, it doesn't read J.E.R.U.S.A.L.E.M.''

Genesis is a very ancient text, translated many times and transmitted orally before that.
And it's overlaid with theological language.

But underneath, you can discern, if you have an open mind.

The early earth was a cloud planet, like Venus today. And Titan today.
And the early earth was purely oceanic, like Kevin Costner's Waterworld.

The darkness over the deep wasn't because there was no sun, it was because the earth
was shrouded in a massive cloud deck. That's what NASA believes. Yes, it says in another
place after there was "light" that God created the sun and moon, whatever. But that's just
repeats - like you find when you are deciphering clay tablets, secret codes, scraps of texts
and the like.

1 - God created the heavens (meaning everything above)
2 - and the earth (everything down here - except life as it was sterile)
3 - and it was wet, no land
4 - and it was dark (no sun ---- at least, no sun shining on the waters)

Nope, excessive nonsense and a foolish argument means that a miss is still a miss. But this insane standard then your supposed nite are misses too. At this point you are not being honest with yourself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see no contradiction. As I said, one goes into more detail concerning man. In fact, that is the purpose of the second account. It does not try and give a full account of the six day creation.

Good-Ole-Rebel

That is because you are afraid at best. An honest person without fear would see.

 

[Subduction Zone]

what was a "planet" back then?
was the earth a "planet" back then?

What was flooded in Noah's day?
all the world
what was the "world" back then?

In Jesus day people said the Roman empire was the 'world'
but people knew of other empires - but "world" meant Roman world.

In Assyrian times the "world" was Assyrian, and they didn't know about
other empires.

It's all confusing, but take the time to understand etymology, history,
philosophy, religion, science, nuances of language, and common sense.

Tell me which version of the Flood myth that you believe in and I will tell you why it fails.

 

[PruePhillip]

Nope, excessive nonsense and a foolish argument means that a miss is still a miss. But this insane standard then your supposed nite are misses too. At this point you are not being honest with yourself.

Yes, and ancient texts which say the city of "Urasalem" can't be Jerusalem because it doesn't read J.E.R.U.S.A.L.E.M.''
No argument here. We don't want insane standards, misses, dishonesty etc.. End of story, no need to enter arguments
about language, case closed.

 

[Audie]

Nope, excessive nonsense and a foolish argument means that a miss is still a miss. But this insane standard then your supposed nite are misses too. At this point you are not being honest with yourself.

You expect creo-honesty?

Even after extensive observations, I am
still puzzled, and have no good hypothesis
as to why the creo constantly makes things
up, or, if lacking imagination, resorts to woo
woo sites and lets others make things up for
them.

Could it be that thro' dwelling overlong in and
befuddled by the mists of Christian fantasy
wherein there be unicorns, the creo simply loses
all ability to discriminate or even care about
what is made up and what has some connection
to reality?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The verses prove exactly what I wanted to prove. The Bible declares itself as the Word of God. You say that is taken out of context. That is your accusation. You need to show how I have supposedly taken it out of context. The burden is yours, not mine.

Iv'e seen this before. People use 'buzz phrases' such as 'out of context' or 'cherry picking' when they disagree with the verses given as said verses are against them. But when asked to explain how this is out of context or is cherry picking, they have no answer. Why? Because they don't know context from a hole in the wall.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Then why didn't you present them properly? An honest person without fear would have properly presented his claim. He would not have posted as you did. You all but admitted you were wrong.

Try again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, and ancient texts which say the city of "Urasalem" can't be Jerusalem because it doesn't read J.E.R.U.S.A.L.E.M.''
No argument here. We don't want insane standards, misses, dishonesty etc.. End of story, no need to enter arguments
about language, case closed.

still wrong, no matter how many times you present a foolish argument. You do not seem to understand that the same technique that changes misses into hits also turns hits into misses. You are not being consistent.

 

[Subduction Zone]

All you have to do is read. If you disagree with the verses, show me why?

Good-Ole-Rebel

Wow, you seem to be having reading comprehension issues. You presented an overly lazy argument. When you present a weak and improper argument, one in which you did not do your homework, then all that is required is an observation that you quoted out of context.

Try supporting your claim properly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You expect creo-honesty?

Even after extensive observations, I am
still puzzled, and have no good hypothesis
as to why the creo constantly makes things
up, or, if lacking imagination, resorts to woo
woo sites and lets others make things up for
them.

Could it be that thro' dwelling overlong in the
mists of fantasy, in Christianity with all its
unicorns, and so forth, the creo simply loses
all ability to discriminate, or even care about
what is made up and what has some connection
to reality?

I don't know why. Perhaps it is because as an ex-Christian I still have a bias for the religion. I was honest when I was a Christian (perhaps that is why I am no longer a Christian), I still believe that other Christians should be honest too. Sadly that honesty is not to be found among creos.

 

[PruePhillip]

still wrong, no matter how many times you present a foolish argument. You do not seem to understand that the same technique that changes misses into hits also turns hits into misses. You are not being consistent.

Sure, I could agree with you, if you can be specific about a claim.

 

[Audie]

I don't know why. Perhaps it is because as an ex-Christian I still have a bias for the religion. I was honest when I was a Christian (perhaps that is why I am no longer a Christian), I still believe that other Christians should be honest too. Sadly that honesty is not to be found among creos.

Again, you are asking the impossible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure, I could agree with you, if you can be specific about a claim.

Your bogus argument of trying to liken the Bible to hieroglyphics. You are not being consistent in your reasoning. If you can change misses into hits using that you can also change hits into misses. It is not a valid argument. If you want to claim that the Bible does not mean what it says then the burden of proof is upon you. I am merely pointing out its errors as written.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again, you are asking the impossible.

But you might be able to empathize with me. You were not born in the U.S, right? Do you not at times see things that your home country is doing that irritates you to no end and you wish that people that you shared a past with could act better? You might be willing to give those from your old homeland the benefit of the doubt in a conversation where they defend such actions, since you would like to believe the best of them. I would like to see my old Christian "buddies" defend their faith properly.


Of course we know what happens to the very rare creationist that can reason properly and debate honestly.

 

[InChrist]

Here is the problem, if you believe that God created the Earth, then he created the evidence that we see when we study the Earth. Your God's work tells us that Genesis is not literally true. You are denying your God's work and calling him a liar when you demand that. Genesis should not be read literally.


You may also be guilty of blasphemy. You are trying to tell your God how he had to make the Earth.

I am very tempted to reply. Great try, but I won't take the bait. I already said I don't want to debate this with you. So I guess I'll add that you can call me a blasphemer and accuse me of calling God a liar... doesn't matter.
Like I said, I see things differently than you.

 

[Goodman John]

Genesis paints 'creation' in very broad strokes, with absolutely no detail to explain things. "Fine", some will say. "God works in mysterious ways" or worse, "We don't have to understand; we just have to believe".

I will go so far as to allow a Creator (as in 'creator of the universe') but I completely reject the notion that the earth and Man appeared fully formed in less than a week. I will support the idea that the universe was created, but that it developed on its own and that life on earth developed on its own- aka Evolution. While I do support Evolutionary theory, I don't completely rule out the possibility that at some point- or even multiple points- in our history that there may have been some 'outside help' in steering things.

I'll use Man as an obvious example. I'm all for the idea- and the science- behind the evolution of Man, up through successive generations of creatures getting closer to modern Man. But then we have the instant that this 'outside help' steps in and figures out that for this pre-human to 'become Man' he needs to be imbued with a spirit- a 'spark of the divine'. Voila! Early Man is created. And now, imbued with this spirit, Man continues his evolution, getting smarter and more resourceful and cleaning up the genetic sandbox to produce what we consider to be Modern Man, appearing thousands of years ago.

Think of the scene in the film 2001: A Space Odyssey in which the pre-human creature discovers the black Monolith and touches it. He doesn't instantly transform into Chuck Norris or Carl Sagan, but now he can learn and start to figure things out instead of just going on animal instinct.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

That is because you are afraid at best. An honest person without fear would see.

Well, if you're an honest person, please explain.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Then why didn't you present them properly? An honest person without fear would have properly presented his claim. He would not have posted as you did. You all but admitted you were wrong.

Try again.

Still waiting for your explanation. How are the verses not in 'context', as you claim?

You have allowed your mouth to write a check your other end can't cover. So, man up. Either admit it or provide an explanation.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Wow, you seem to be having reading comprehension issues. You presented an overly lazy argument. When you present a weak and improper argument, one in which you did not do your homework, then all that is required is an observation that you quoted out of context.

Try supporting your claim properly.

The Scriptures I gave in post #(199) say exactly what I needed to prove you wrong. You said in post #(197) that the Bible doesn't claim to be the Word of God or that it is literally true and all that it says is true.

The verses I gave prove you wrong. The verses I gave show that you don't know what you're talking about. You like to boast quite a bit. Yet you have nothing to back it up.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, if you're an honest person, please explain.

Good-Ole-Rebel

An honest person is not afraid to deal with reality. Or to test their ideas. You on the other hand only have circular reasoning at best.

You claimed to "know" but that was apparently a falsehood. You cannot explain how or why you know. And as a Christian this should worry you. Let me quote a verse for you:

"But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,"

So far you have not been following that particular order.