Genesis Creation

[ChristineM]

if substance can ......bestow......life

perhaps you can fill in the gaps

I wish i could, although the gaps in knowledge traditionally filled with "my god did it, not anyone elses god but my god did it" are getting smaller and many gaps have disappeared all together, abiogenesis is a hard one. Conditions are known, and life can be created using similar (and in some cases not so similar) conditions but as yet no one has come up with a way to bypass a billion years of cooking.

 

[Thief]

a way to bypass a billion years of cooking.

I've seen the experiment

three glass containers linked in common with glass tubing
one carries what is believed to be primordial atmosphere
one carries what is thought to be primordial ocean water
one has electrodes with a visible charge between them

behold......let there be......amino acids

 

[ChristineM]

I've seen the experiment

three glass containers linked in common with glass tubing
one carries what is believed to be primordial atmosphere
one carries what is thought to be primordial ocean water
one has electrodes with a visible charge between them

behold......let there be......amino acids

i did the experiment at school so..?

Follow that with a lot of time and see what happens.

 

[Thief]

i did the experiment at school so..?

Follow that with a lot of time and see what happens.

so....another thread is needed

another attempt to drawn the line.....

IS IT ALIVE?.....IS IT ALIVE?

 

[ChristineM]

so....another thread is needed

another attempt to drawn the line.....

IS IT ALIVE?.....IS IT ALIVE?

Whatever makes you happy

 

[rrobs]

Then your guess is wrong. Why would you even think that when literary analysis is done they don't know the subject of a verse? Where does that idea even come from?
Not only is the meaning of a passage discussed there are multiple layers looked at when doing analysis of writing styles:

"If one looks at all of these elements together, we can see just how brilliant Mark’s story is, having multiple allegorical layers weaved into one."

Obvious meanings are looked at as well as metaphorical and allegorical meanings and instances of using, transforming, reversing other stories like Mark using Psalms.

"Additionally, in this story, Mark seems to be pointing out how the Jews are erroneously viewing Jesus as the scapegoat, where Jesus is scorned, beaten, spat upon, crowned and pierced, and dressed in scarlet, and though Barabbas is the actual scapegoat, the Jews mistakenly embrace him instead. So Mark seems to be portraying the Jews as acting completely blind to the situation and choosing their sins (i.e. Barabbas) rather than their salvation (i.e. Jesus). Finally, this story seems to suggest that the Jews have also chosen the wrong model for the expected messiah. Whereas Barabbas could be seen as the murderous revolutionary, in line with the common Jewish belief that the messiah was expected to be a kind of revolutionary military leader, Jesus on the other hand, exemplified the suffering servant model of the messiah (another Jewish messianic model, though arguably less popular than the former), and one that would circumvent any need for a military revolution by enacting a spiritual victory through his death instead. So the Jews appear to have chosen the type of messiah they want, rather than the type of messiah that God wants instead (or so Mark believes anyway). Furthermore, rather than using a random lottery (i.e. God) to choose which “goat” would serve as the scapegoat, and which would serve as the atonement, the Jews removed God from the equation and made the choice themselves. If one looks at all of these elements together, we can see just how brilliant Mark’s story is, having multiple allegorical layers weaved into one."


The Gospels as Allegorical Myth, Part I of 4: Mark

So no, every scholar is looking for all meanings as well as stories that authors copied from and how and why. If you read the link you would probably realize this instead of making odd assumptions? Just because theologians assume this is a message from a God and ONLY interpret it from this angle that is far from making someone an "expert".

Actually my guess was right. You don't know the subject of the scriptures. Well, I guess all I can really say is that you didn't tell me what the subject is. I don't know, maybe you did know but just didn't want to tell me.

In any case, I offer the following verses where Jesus succinctly gives the subject of the scriptures in as at least the following two places:

John 5:39,

Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
​

Luke 24:27,

And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
​

The Bible is all about Jesus. Very simple. If one looks at it in any other light, they'll remain in the dark (no pun intended ).

​

You categorically claim allegories where there is neither the need nor the justification for doing so. Do you do that with the newspaper? What makes the scriptures any different? Why can't they be taken for what they say, just as we do with the newspaper? If everything is an allegory, then communication would become difficult to impossible.

The Bible claims over and over again to contain the truth. Look up the word truth in the dictionary. It generally means something that conforms with reality. Reality is hardly allegorical. Reality is an actual thing that is independent of anybody's conception of it. Reality, and therefore truth, stands on its own, independent of our perception of that reality.

 

[ecco]

OK, then you shouldn't have any trouble citing a verse or two that succinctly tells us the main subject of the Bible. I'll even give you a hint; one of the verses is in Genesis. Given your ten year old was taught Genesis in Sunday school, it should be a breeze for you.

Short of that, you might want to consider you are hardly in a position to comment on the scriptures.

Ohhh. Now you have me in a corner. How can I possibly get out?

You want me to cite a verse or two that succinctly tells us WHAT YOU BELIEVE TO BE the main subject of the Bible. Well, sorry, Charlie. I don't know what is in your mind. I am not a psychic, and I don't pretend to be.

But as far as what is written there, it's really quite straight forward. A group of men had somewhat different beliefs about things than other people of their time and locality. So, like Muhammed or Joseph Smith, they created their own scripture - with their own ideas of how things got started and how things progressed. They made up stories to show how THEIR god created the universe. They made up stories to scare their followers into obeying worship and sanitary and dietary rules that they believed in. Failure to meet their standards would bring down the punishment of god himself (just wait 'til your father gets home). To make sure that it was everyone's responsibility to toe the line, they even made up stories about what "happened" when all of society got messed up (Your Father Has Come Home). They wrote from the perspective of people of their time, They wrote with the knowledge of the people of their time. It was laughable to my ten-year-old self.

How it could be believed was a mystery to me for many years. Then I learned all about the indoctrination of children as practiced by peoples of all religions. It's no longer a mystery why people believe. It's just a sad fact.

 

[ecco]

I think I was plain in my assertion. You can mangle what I said any way you want, but my actual post was very clear.

This post?

Like yourself I at one time got my truth from the polls. I discovered a much better source of truth. Can you guess what I think that may be?

How did I mangle what you said? I asked about what you said. I asked if you thought the poll was wrong? I asked if you got your information about the number of people believing in creation from God.
Why are you getting defensive?

​

 

[rrobs]

This post?

​

How did I mangle what you said? I asked about what you said. I asked if you thought the poll was wrong? I asked if you got your information about the number of people believing in creation from God.
Why are you getting defensive?

Now you want me to defend my defensiveness? That, my friend, is a loosing proposition so I'll pass.

 

[rrobs]

Ohhh. Now you have me in a corner. How can I possibly get out?

You want me to cite a verse or two that succinctly tells us WHAT YOU BELIEVE TO BE the main subject of the Bible. Well, sorry, Charlie. I don't know what is in your mind. I am not a psychic, and I don't pretend to be.

But as far as what is written there, it's really quite straight forward. A group of men had somewhat different beliefs about things than other people of their time and locality. So, like Muhammed or Joseph Smith, they created their own scripture - with their own ideas of how things got started and how things progressed. They made up stories to show how THEIR god created the universe. They made up stories to scare their followers into obeying worship and sanitary and dietary rules that they believed in. Failure to meet their standards would bring down the punishment of god himself (just wait 'til your father gets home). To make sure that it was everyone's responsibility to toe the line, they even made up stories about what "happened" when all of society got messed up (Your Father Has Come Home). They wrote from the perspective of people of their time, They wrote with the knowledge of the people of their time. It was laughable to my ten-year-old self.

How it could be believed was a mystery to me for many years. Then I learned all about the indoctrination of children as practiced by peoples of all religions. It's no longer a mystery why people believe. It's just a sad fact.

I wasn't trying to back you into a corner. I just wanted to see if you knew about that which you spoke. Every book has a subject. If on the first day of my English Lit class the professor told us we were going to study War and Peace and then said it is about a one legged sailor and a big whale (the subject), I'd be suspect to say the least.

The subject of any book is the prerogative of the author, not the reader, so neither my opinion nor yours has any real bearing on the matter. Jesus used very simple language when he declared that the scriptures were about him, that he was the subject. That is the case from Genesis 3:15 onward.

 

[ecco]

I wasn't trying to back you into a corner.

Duh!

I just wanted to see if you knew about that which you spoke. Every book has a subject.

But you didn't ask me what the subject was. You wanted me to find the passages that you thought stated the subject. You do see the difference, don't you?

The subject of any book is the prerogative of the author, not the reader, so neither my opinion nor yours has any real bearing on the matter.

So, why did you ask me to find the passages that you thought stated the subject?

Jesus used very simple language when he declared that the scriptures were about him, that he was the subject.

Now we get to the real problem. You believe that Jesus' words in the Bible are actual quotes. Biblical scholars, even Christian Biblical scholars, have come to realize that none of the writers of the Gospels were eyewitnesses to the events they wrote about.

Consider The Sermon on the Mount. Matthew's version is over 3000 words. How did "Matthew" accurately record all 3000 words?

 

[joelr]

Actually my guess was right. You don't know the subject of the scriptures. Well, I guess all I can really say is that you didn't tell me what the subject is. I don't know, maybe you did know but just didn't want to tell me.

So you have no idea. What was the point of that ?

In any case, I offer the following verses where Jesus succinctly gives the subject of the scriptures in as at least the following two places:

John 5:39,

Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
​

Luke 24:27,

And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
​

The Bible is all about Jesus. Very simple. If one looks at it in any other light, they'll remain in the dark (no pun intended ).

So Luke and John make a claim that it was about Jesus all along. I don't buy that at all? The gospel writers made a claim which is after the fact and has no evidence. So you have some beliefs, are they supported by evidence?

​

You categorically claim allegories where there is neither the need nor the justification for doing so. Do you do that with the newspaper? What makes the scriptures any different? Why can't they be taken for what they say, just as we do with the newspaper? If everything is an allegory, then communication would become difficult to impossible.

The newspaper isn't telling mythic, improbable stories taken from OT narratives and using, Markan sandwiches, triadic ring structure, transformations, inversions, chiasms and other re-workings of older literature. The on top of that there are obvious allegories. Like the withering fig tree representing the old Israel.

Now if you feel there is no justification for claiming the gospel narratives are allegories then here is a brief article breaking down the literary devices and allegories used in Mark. So it's clearly justified. Why would you assume just because something isn't known to you that it couldn't possible exist?
The Gospels as Allegorical Myth, Part I of 4: Mark

The Bible claims over and over again to contain the truth. Look up the word truth in the dictionary. It generally means something that conforms with reality. Reality is hardly allegorical. Reality is an actual thing that is independent of anybody's conception of it. Reality, and therefore truth, stands on its own, independent of our perception of that reality.

Did you just enter the notion that because the Bible says it's true then it must be true? Are you aware all religious text say they are true. Scientology and Mormonism say they are true. I'm sure Islam says it's true as well as Hindu text.


"
The Vedas
The Vedic scriptures reflect the importance of truth in human life. The Vedas themselves embody truth. Hence, they are considered inviolable and indisputable and as instruments of verbal testimony reliable to ascertain metaphysical truths. The Rigveda contains many references to truth. In one of the hymns (2.14), it affirms that Truth proceeds from gods, and truth is the base that supports the earth (10.85).
The Vedas also extol gods as truth beings and personifications of truth. The gods of Rigvedic hymns are lords of truth. As the guardians (dikpalas) and upholders of truth, order, and dharma in all directions, they are pleased by truth and respond to those who speak truth, abide by the laws, and make their offerings truthfully. They not only protect the world and the worshippers of truth from the falsehood of demons but also destroy the enemies of truth and the worshippers of evil. If the gods become weak in the body of a person, evil tendencies manifests and he falls into evil ways.

According to the Rigveda Indra is changeless in truth (8.50), son of truth (8.58) and was born of truth (4.19).........."