In Genesis the plants were created before the sun moon and stars

[TagliatelliMonster]

They are included ... but those ideas are not the only errors of interpretation and/or translation.

When translations are doubtful, turning to the original languages is a very useful resource.

Today we have thousands of biblical manuscripts written in their original languages and which are very easy to access. In addition, there are dictionaries and grammars of these languages that make the work much easier for those who wish to learn. Isn't that fascinating about Scriptures that were completed thousands of years ago?

There is no justification for two people who want to be able to study difficult-to-understand Bible topics in a peaceful and helpful environment.

So kind of like how today we have +300.000 papers on evolutionary biology and mountains upon mountains of evidence. And we have a ginormous library at our disposal called "the internet" with which we can pull that information up on our screen at light speeds with but just a few clicks. So there is no justification for anyone to remain in perpetual ignorance on this vast body of knowledge.


And yet, here we are.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Just in case people didn't notice it before, this is what it says in Genesis 1:

I think the more obvious one is: Genesis 1:6-8 it says that the land and sky both are made from the center of a shapeless mass of water. The waters withdraw above and below giving land and sky. Then, also, there is the fruit that gives knowledge. Many things in Genesis shout plainly "NOT LITERAL," but fruit that gives knowledge is perhaps the strongest and most obvious.

Fruit that gives knowledge. The land and sky appear in the midst of a shapeless mass of water, like when the Israelites cross the Red Sea. I just want to say this ought to have been obvious to me long ago, and it wasn't. It certainly shouts at me now though.

 

[excreationist]

.....Then, also, there is the fruit that gives knowledge. Many things in Genesis shout plainly "NOT LITERAL," but fruit that gives knowledge is perhaps the strongest and most obvious.

Fruit that gives knowledge....

BTW there was also the Tree of Life that makes whoever eats it immortal. That's why Adam and Eve were prevented from staying in the Garden of Eden - so that they couldn't become immortal. I don't see why an infinitely powerful and intelligent God couldn't make some fruit give knowledge.

 

[Brickjectivity]

BTW there was also the Tree of Life that makes whoever eats it immortal. That's why Adam and Eve were prevented from staying in the Garden of Eden - so that they couldn't become immortal. I don't see why an infinitely powerful and intelligent God couldn't make some fruit give knowledge.

Fruit is an excellent analogy for knowledge and for life. You pick the poison but gain knowledge, or you pick the immortality but have to live as a stupid person. Go out and live, or stay home where you are safe? Do what your parents taught you, or find out new things? Stay at your current job or take a risk at a new one?

 

[Audie]

Interesting. What I'm getting from you is that you've never found any significant value in fiction. iirc the puritans hated fiction and they said that since it was not true it should be shunned. My understanding from you is that you're not really saying how you feel about fiction other than you want to disagree w/ anything I say.

You're not saying that every single one of the billions --most of the human race-- report seeing value in the Bible because of "coercion, physical and mental" are you? Please let me know what you think after mulling this through.

Do you realize that earlier you were saying "bibles" as in many different bibles? Now it seems you're saying "book" like there's one underlying common book. Is it possible for us to pick one position here?

You've expressed this opinion and I thank you for your input.

So...I ask for an example and you can't give one,

Instead of admitting it you try to turn the issue into
my disability, making up something and pretending
to be " getting" it from me


And then continue to do so with the rest of my post, making things up freehand.

I commented on the so- obvious fact that
people read into the bible what they choose to
find.

They only thing you got right was despite
yourself, giving as you did such a good
example of how to read what isnt there - just as
I described bible- interpreters doing


We predict that continuing with said method will
lead to terrif success with your Quest for
wisdom via bible- readin' .

 

[Pete in Panama]

Interesting point, Pete. Because sometimes fiction can bring out a point that gets to a person's heart in explaining a matter. Almost like poetry.

yeah, we'd been talking about the Bible and when she said that much of the Bible was not true my thought was that fiction was not true either yet it has obvious value.

Perhaps my problem w/ Audie is that she (he?) just wants to fight and not consult.

 

[Audie]

BTW there was also the Tree of Life that makes whoever eats it immortal. That's why Adam and Eve were prevented from staying in the Garden of Eden - so that they couldn't become immortal. I don't see why an infinitely powerful and intelligent God couldn't make some fruit give knowledge.

Such a being if it existed could
do anything.
That hardly makes true any outlandish stories
made up by persons unknown.

 

[Audie]

Yes. We're always learning.

And we also have to teach while we are learning, to help others also learn the same things and they share later.

Who can know all things? Only God. Jesus himself recognized that there were things that only his Father knew, and he also said that in heaven his Father would continue to teach him amazing things.

Matt. 24:36 Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.

John 5:20 For the Father has affection for the Son and shows him all the things he himself does, and he will show him works greater than these, so that you may marvel.

It is a privilege being taught by God.

"We" sure are resistant to learning any
basic biology.

 

[Pete in Panama]

So...I ask for an example and you can't give one,

Instead of admitting it you try to turn the issue into
my disability...

Let's not fight, this really is an interesting topic and my thinking is that our key is to consult.

First, please accept my apology for allowing us to fall into confusion here. My situation was that you and I were talking about the Bible, then you pointed out that much if it was not true, then I endeavored to explore the idea that a narrative does not have to be historically accurate to be able to bear truth, and then when you asked for an example of that I assumed that you did not see any value in a narrative that was not historically accurate. So where I am now is that I'm talking about how there can be value in a narrative w/o historical accuracy.

Do you agree, are you seeing something different, or would you prefer that we end our chat?

 

[Brian2]

It is a problem for old earth creationists though they would say that on day 3 the plants were receiving light from the sky but the sun moon and stars only became distinct in the sky a long time later. (day-age theory)

So what is the problem there?
On day one the heavens and earth were created and there was water over the earth (according to Genesis and science) and clouds around the earth (keeping the light out (Job 38:9), so it was dark and at the end of day 1 and light started coming through but not so that that sun and moon and starts could be seen............... until day 4.

 

[Audie]

Let's not fight, this really is an interesting topic and my thinking is that our key is to consult.

First, please accept my apology for allowing us to fall into confusion here. My situation was that you and I were talking about the Bible, then you pointed out that much if it was not true, then I endeavored to explore the idea that a narrative does not have to be historically accurate to be able to bear truth, and then when you asked for an example of that I assumed that you did not see any value in a narrative that was not historically accurate. So where I am now is that I'm talking about how there can be value in a narrative w/o historical accuracy.

Do you agree, are you seeing something different, or would you prefer that we end our chat?

Suit yourself re continuing.

You wouldnt know that my Mom was a
professor of English lit, that I'm a voracious
reader in both English and Chinese.
That I've read the bible cover to cover.

Pretty much bicultural Chinese / American.

You do way too much assuming, to,
quite frankly, the point of making things up.

Pretty tough to "consult" if you persist in that, and
consider corrections a fighting.

Now, to the bible.
A lot of it just is not true.

Far from promoting wisdom that leads to
vast confusion, half of the Americans think
" god" really drowned all the people and baby rabbits.

Seems like telling the truth would be better.
If there's any truth at all in the "god" bit.

There is folk wisdom of course. Lessons about
character, human nature. The same,ideas are also
hard wired into our culture.

Fiction is routinely used as a vehicle for imparting
values from earliest age.

It's not like I'm defective and dont know that.

You said there's profound truths in the Bible.
I'm didn't see any.

I asked you to share an example or two.
Can you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So what is the problem there?
On day one the heavens and earth were created and there was water over the earth (according to Genesis and science) and clouds around the earth (keeping the light out (Job 38:9), so it was dark and at the end of day 1 and light started coming through but not so that that sun and moon and starts could be seen............... until day 4.

When the Earth formed there was no water on the surface. It was . . . hmm, what is that scientific term for what the surface was like? Oh yeah! Hot!!

 

[YoursTrue]

yeah, we'd been talking about the Bible and when she said that much of the Bible was not true my thought was that fiction was not true either yet it has obvious value.

Perhaps my problem w/ Audie is that she (he?) just wants to fight and not consult.

Sometimes it takes time to "figure things out." And sometimes maybe we won't do it in this lifetime. That's one reason why I like the Bible, and now that I think about it, Moses took a long time in the wilderness -- like 40 years -- yes, it seems astounding but interestingly enough the arguments continued then. God helped him. I can't figure it all out, that's for sure, Although there have been artifacts verifying some of what the Bible says. I just trust in God that He's there -- He's helped me 'cope' with this world and so I look forward to the future, hoping ... doing the best I can in my imperfect state.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sometimes it takes time to "figure things out." And sometimes maybe we won't do it in this lifetime. That's one reason why I like the Bible, and now that I think about it, Moses took a long time in the wilderness -- like 40 years -- yes, it seems astounding but interestingly enough the arguments continued then. God helped him. I can't figure it all out, that's for sure, Although there have been artifacts verifying some of what the Bible says. I just trust in God that He's there -- He's helped me 'cope' with this world and so I look forward to the future, hoping ... doing the best I can in my imperfect state.

And there have been even more "artifacts" that contradict the Bible. You need to be able to handle all of the evidence. Not just cherry picked bits of it.

The problem with the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is that the Bible is full of errors. It is not necessarily a worthless book, but when one demands that it has to be inerrant then that act alone refutes it.

 

[YoursTrue]

yeah, we'd been talking about the Bible and when she said that much of the Bible was not true my thought was that fiction was not true either yet it has obvious value.

Perhaps my problem w/ Audie is that she (he?) just wants to fight and not consult.

Well, I notice two things: one is that naysayers like to attack those who staunchly believe in the Bible, but not those that claim they belong to a religion but also believe in the theory of evolution and a God that may be there or may not be there, except maybe in essence somehow. Now if someone can figure that out, that would be great. But each one is allowed by God to believe or not believe. And I believe and have firm hope that He will settle matters justly.
Take care and have a really good day. You put a smile on my face in a good way today.

 

[YoursTrue]

And there have been even more "artifacts" that contradict the Bible. You need to be able to handle all of the evidence. Not just cherry picked bits of it.

The problem with the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is that the Bible is full of errors. It is not necessarily a worthless book, but when one demands that it has to be inerrant then that act alone refutes it.

I am going to say so long to you for a while -- take care.

 

[YoursTrue]

So what is the problem there?
On day one the heavens and earth were created and there was water over the earth (according to Genesis and science) and clouds around the earth (keeping the light out (Job 38:9), so it was dark and at the end of day 1 and light started coming through but not so that that sun and moon and starts could be seen............... until day 4.

Note: some people will say anything to contradict or refute what the Bible says. It's kind of like medication doctors prescribe -- some meds available in one country may be banned in another.

 

[excreationist]

So what is the problem there?
On day one the heavens and earth were created and there was water over the earth (according to Genesis and science) and clouds around the earth (keeping the light out (Job 38:9), so it was dark and at the end of day 1 and light started coming through but not so that that sun and moon and starts could be seen............... until day 4.

Apparently fruit trees only appeared about 200 million years ago (day 3) - so did the sun, moon and stars only become visible after that?

 

[Audie]

Well, I notice two things: one is that naysayers like to attack those who staunchly believe in the Bible, but not those that claim they belong to a religion but also believe in the theory of evolution and a God that may be there or may not be there, except maybe in essence somehow. Now if someone can figure that out, that would be great. But each one is allowed by God to believe or not believe. And I believe and have firm hope that He will settle matters justly.
Take care and have a really good day. You put a smile on my face in a good way today.

I notice you doing some attacking here, on atheists and
the majorityoif your fellow chridtians

Anyway, you are misunderstanding
or misstating the case re discussing evolution.

The " attack" as you choose to call it, is on
the weird n wacky beliefs creationists have about
science.

Of course people can believe as they wish.
But if someone specifically comes to a debate
forum to post nonsense, proclaim its fact but have
nothing to back it up of course there will be someone
to tell them they got it wrong.

Do you have some issue with people doing that?

 

[Pogo]

Apparently fruit trees only appeared about 200 million years ago (day 3) - so did the sun, moon and stars only become visible after that?

Do you have a point?
Fruit trees not days but years?