Creationism and Evolution. Conflict or reconciliation.

[PruePhillip]

You're citing passages of folklore and legend to counter science.

What has 'science' got to do with the Sermon on the Mount?
I suspect such sermons are the real problem for people in our drug addled
and adulterous generation - not whether a man rose from the dead or not.

 

[PruePhillip]

So?
No! It happened more like this:

4.5B years ago planets accrete from cosmic 'dust'.
4B years ago our prtoto-planet cooled enough to form a solid crust formed over the still-molten molten core.
4.28B years ago water began condensing from the atmosphere. Nothing "rose," the water just pooled in low lying regions.
3.5B years ago prokaryotic life appeared in the now extant seas. Planet's crust fractures into floating (on magma) plates.
1.6B years ago eukaryotic life appears.
1B years ago multicellular life appears.

It wasn't till half a billion years later that microbes, fungi, plants, then arthropods and primitive tetrapods managed to occupy solid land. Nothing happened or appeared suddenly. Nothing was magically 'poofed' into existence.
Earth's original hydrogen-Helium atmosphere was lost to space. Heavier volcanic gasses replaced them.
Link, please.

It's now believed on rocky planets in 'habitable zones' around stars that water worlds
might not just be common but the default. At one stage, reminiscent of the first creation
account in Genesis, the earth was a water world, and a cloud planet. The continents
rose above the water line.

Finding the origins of life in a drying puddle -- ScienceDaily

 

[PruePhillip]

I'm saying family ties (not calling them tribal ties, although history is interesting as "families" expanded into national groups) can be very, very strong. Yes, I was thinking, too, that he was despised, a man of sorrows.

Family ties with the attempt to kill Jesus - the incident was in Jesus' own
town of Nazareth: I would not be surprised if family connection were among
those who sought to kill Jesus;.

 

[blü 2]

Redeemer… not a king, not a warrior, not a philosopher

More literally translated as 'vindicator' and not understood to refer to God, and since there's no concept of Jesus in the Tanakh, it's not a reference to Jesus either. It means someone who will vindicate Job in his lifetime and put an end to the appalling nature of his life.

(I find the morality of the Job story entirely revolting, indefensible.)

 

[rational experiences]

Just to make sure that this thread also does not become a debate about the definition of creationism, I am not referring to the wave of YEC or is it Young Earth Creationists. By creationism I mean the typical theistic stand that the universe was a creation and God exists and was/is the creator.

Thus, with this understanding it might be an interesting discussion to analyse what you have to say.

In the past there have been some mainstream theologians who propagated evolution. The query is, is evolution necessarily debunking creationism?

God in science by human definition is O.

O mass bodies existed evolved cooled but once burning and self consuming. Statement created. Statement evolved. In the same status.

Comparison . To think. Suns owned the reasoning how science was informed. As a human.

As a rational self human appraisal. What a human thinking did.

Gained awareness to convert by the sun.model. versus created evolved bodies.

His owned human ideal using O maths to convert change God as mass planets was the outcome. O gods were planets. His idea.

Which in AI conditions subliminal feedback introduced by human sciences he said God O mass released its radiation fusion held in a stated science earth caused UFO war.

Same ideals he uses theorising today.

Proved he knew by the stories he expressed as aware self.

Creationism and evolution the same science thesis.

Bio life owns neither review as oxygen and water is idealised in creationism and evolution theories already.

 

[PruePhillip]

More literally translated as 'vindicator' and not understood to refer to God, and since there's no concept of Jesus in the Tanakh, it's not a reference to Jesus either. It means someone who will vindicate Job in his lifetime and put an end to the appalling nature of his life.

(I find the morality of the Job story entirely revolting, indefensible.)

There are multiple interpretations for most key words in the bible. You can take your
pick, as the Jews love to do. But the context is of an existing figure who will one day
stand upon the earth, someone who Job foresaw in his suffering.
David spoke in the same way - seeing the same figure in his suffering.

Re the 'appalling nature of his life'
Solomon never suffered like his father, King David, and there's no humility, contrition,
empathy, love etc in Solomon's words. A life of luxury made this man darker in his
outlook. His last book, Ecclesiastes, is rather dark and depressing reading. And no
vision in Solomon of the Messiah.
So there's something to be said for the 'appalling' lives many of the bible's saints lived.


avenger (13), bought back (1), buy back (1), claim (1), close relative (3), closest relative (3),
closest relatives (1), ever wish to redeem (2), kinsman (2), redeem (22), redeemed (25),
redeemer (1), Redeemer (18), redeems (1), relative (2), relatives (1), rescue (1), wishes to
redeem (1)

 

[blü 2]

There are multiple interpretations for most key words in the bible. You can take your pick, as the Jews love to do. But the context is of an existing figure who will one day stand upon the earth, someone who Job foresaw in his suffering.

This boils down to two possibilities ─ one is clearly God [him]self, the Savior and Redeemer of the Jews; and an exalted human who will be a great leader and ensure the Jews have their liberty. Jesus was neither.

So there's something to be said for the 'appalling' lives many of the bible's saints lived.

I was talking about the morality of the bet that God and Satan make in the bar at the start of Job, which leaves our eponym with a murdered family and household, destitution and outcast status. So much for a God of justice. As I said, morally repulsive.

 

[PruePhillip]

This boils down to two possibilities ─ one is clearly God [him]self, the Savior and Redeemer of the Jews; and an exalted human who will be a great leader and ensure the Jews have their liberty. Jesus was neither.
I was talking about the morality of the bet that God and Satan make in the bar at the start of Job, which leaves our eponym with a murdered family and household, destitution and outcast status. So much for a God of justice. As I said, morally repulsive.

Yes, Job speaks of a redeemer and God. The context of Job 19 (and the rest of the book) suggests they are not one and the same.
God's justice is not man's justice. God said he would deliver justice to the Jews - millions died when they "knew not the time of their
visitation" and millions died afterward in persecutions and exile. The point for all of us is this - do we want this kind of justice for
ourselves? And, are YOU going to complain?

 

[YoursTrue]

Family ties with the attempt to kill Jesus - the incident was in Jesus' own
town of Nazareth: I would not be surprised if family connection were among
those who sought to kill Jesus;.

Jesus did say that families would turn against one another. So I don't want to go into detail about war, religion, and family ties, but -- Jesus did say family ties would be problematic.

Matthew 10:21
Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rise against their parents and have them put to death.

Matthew 10:35
For I have come to turn 'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.

Now of course, there would be different scenarios depicting these situations, as the Bible comments, let the reader determine.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, Job speaks of a redeemer and God. The context of Job 19 (and the rest of the book) suggests\hey are not one and the same.
God's justice is not man's justice. God said he would deliver justice to the Jews - millions died when they "knew not the time of their
visitation" and millions died afterward in persecutions and exile. The point for all of us is this - do we want this kind of justice for
ourselves? And, are YOU going to complain?

About complaining -- let's see -- (Gotta put it in perspective...)

(Deuteronomy 6:13)
Christian Standard Bible "Fear the LORD your God, worship him, and take your oaths in his name."

Holman Christian Standard Bible "Fear Yahweh your God, worship Him, and take your oaths in His name."

American Standard Version "Thou shalt fear Jehovah thy God; and him shalt thou serve, and shalt swear by his name"

(Read according to knowledge and comfort level per translation.)

 

[YoursTrue]

There are multiple interpretations for most key words in the bible. You can take your
pick, as the Jews love to do. But the context is of an existing figure who will one day
stand upon the earth, someone who Job foresaw in his suffering.
David spoke in the same way - seeing the same figure in his suffering....

Not going to go into it all now -- about seeing God -- much of it figurative, since others have 'seen' God but we know also no one can see God and live -- SO -- Job knew that he would be resurrected (in the flesh). And thus see God. Job had faith.

 

[YoursTrue]

Quite so.
So which is better evidenced?

So what came first in your opinion (educated, that is...). The chicken or the egg?

 

[Aupmanyav]

What has 'science' got to do with the Sermon on the Mount?

What is so special about sermon on the mount? Many people before and after Jesus have spouted same things, right from Hammurabi, Zoroaster and Buddha to Bahaollah and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of India in the 19th Century? We have a saying in Hindi which says 'Par upadesh kushal bahutere" (Many people are adept at advising/preaching others).

 

[Valjean]

What has 'science' got to do with the Sermon on the Mount?
I suspect such sermons are the real problem for people in our drug addled
and adulterous generation - not whether a man rose from the dead or not.

Sorry, then. I thought this was the creationism and evolution thread.

 

[Valjean]

It's now believed on rocky planets in 'habitable zones' around stars that water worlds
might not just be common but the default. At one stage, reminiscent of the first creation
account in Genesis, the earth was a water world, and a cloud planet. The continents
rose above the water line.

But that didn't happen.
Where did you get the idea that this was originally a water world? Noöne knowledgeable about these subjects believes this. I know of no evidence supporting this.
How do you think the planet formed, from droplets of water in space?

Finding the origins of life in a drying puddle -- ScienceDaily

What does this have to do with the sequence of planetary or biological evolution? Am I missing something?
Isn't this thread about two different proposed developmental sequences?

 

[blü 2]

Yes, Job speaks of a redeemer and God.

Pay attention, class ─ I've already mentioned that the more accurate translation of 'redeemer' here is 'vindicator' and anyway that it refers to someone in his own time.

God's justice is not man's justice.

Then with no common understanding, why would anyone trust God's justice even for a second?

God said he would deliver justice to the Jews - millions died when they "knew not the time of their visitation" and millions died afterward in persecutions and exile. The point for all of us is this - do we want this kind of justice for ourselves? And, are YOU going to complain?

Well, I'm certainly not going to believe. And were I inclined to believe, I wouldn't pick such a moral pervert.

 

[Aupmanyav]

At one stage, reminiscent of the first creation account in Genesis, the earth was a water world, and a cloud planet. The continents rose above the water line.

Let me correct you a bit at this point. Earth was never a water world. The world simply does not have that much water. It was always a mix, and the oceans are but puddles as compared to the depth of earth. The deepest, Mariana Trench being just 11 kms to the total of 6357 kms to the center of the earth. At the time when there were continents rising up, there were always contents going down also. It is happening even today. The land mass of India will go under the land mass of Asia and some land mass will rise somewhere else. Another point, continents do not go under the sea, they do under some other land mass. Those who have studied Geology know this - continental shift. We do not float over sea, we float over molten rock. Drawn to scale, Earth's crust is just a thin line.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The problem is that, regardless of dna similarities, nothing is proven. (As you know.) And there are more questions. Such as: complexities, chicken and egg, and all kinds of things.

I do not know. What kind of problems are you mentioning, what is not proven, @YoursTrue ? Let us discuss that.

 

[PruePhillip]

Let me correct you a bit at this point. Earth was never a water world. The world simply does not have that much water. It was always a mix, and the oceans are but puddles as compared to the depth of earth. The deepest, Mariana Trench being just 11 kms to the total of 6357 kms to the center of the earth. At the time when there were continents rising up, there were always contents going down also. It is happening even today. The land mass of India will go under the land mass of Asia and some land mass will rise somewhere else. Another point, continents do not go under the sea, they do under some other land mass. Those who have studied Geology know this - continental shift. We do not float over sea, we float over molten rock. Drawn to scale, Earth's crust is just a thin line.

Sure, and the graphic is cool. But early earth was an oceanic world before the continents appeared.

 

[PruePhillip]

Pay attention, class ─ I've already mentioned that the more accurate translation of 'redeemer' here is 'vindicator' and anyway that it refers to someone in his own time.
Then with no common understanding, why would anyone trust God's justice even for a second?
Well, I'm certainly not going to believe. And were I inclined to believe, I wouldn't pick such a moral pervert.

From the time of Jacob in Egypt we read of Israel as a nation of Hebrews. But that this nation
will end with the 'he to whom all things belong' or 'Shiloh' appear.
Jesus gave another perspective - in prophesying the end of Israel (happened about AD 135)
He had this to say, "And Jerusalem shall be trampled down of the Gentiles until the time of the
Gentiles is fulfilled." That year was 1967 - in the midst of the moral and cultural ferment of the
West the Jews returned to Jerusalem.

I like how various ways of translating give different pictures

When Jacob came to his fourth son Judah, he uttered one of the most amazing prophecies in all
the Bible. For 2000 years Genesis 49:8-12 has been regarded as one of the greatest Messianic
prophecies in the Old Testament. ... The scepter (the sign of regal authority) would rest with Judah
until “Shiloh” comes. “Shiloh” is either a proper name for the Messiah, or it is a Hebrew contraction
meaning “he to whom it (the scepter) belongs.” If it is a proper name, then “Shiloh” means “the one
who brings peace.” That may well be correct, since Isaiah 9:6-7 calls Messiah the “Prince of Peace.”
If it is a Hebrew contraction, Jacob is prophesying the Messiah will be the rightful ruler of the world.
Both thoughts are true, and it is possible both thoughts are intended by the expression “Shiloh.”

Jacob: Messiah Will Come From Judah | Keep Believing Ministries