God Recreated the Earth 6,000 Years Ago!

[Robert.Evans]

Yes it was - and in reference to an event from antiquity that the writers of Genesis had no first hand knowledge of, occurring somewhere further East from the holy land, deep in Mesopotamia.

To read the Biblical version as a literal, dedicated, Judeo-Christian event is to completely miss the mark.

Good.
I might further add that science says that the planet MIGHT* have been fully covered with water at one time and that it was also 'snowball earth'. So in that sense, it was global, just not as we think. That would fit my understanding of an evolving consciousness that always follows something that has already happened.

EDIT:
*A model run by Australian scientists...which does not appear to be accepted

 

[metis]

Good.
I might further add that science says that the planet might have been fully covered with water at one time and that it was also 'snowball earth'. So in that sense, it was global, just not as we think.

There's no evidence, nor has any such belief ever been assumed within the scientific community, that water covered the entire Earth.

 

[Demonslayer]

The Bible has been very successful as intended, a guide for humanity.

Has it? How are those who follow the Bible more moral, happier, or in any way better than those who don't? I submit that the Bible is an awful guide for humanity. The OT is a complete nightmare and should be thrown right out unles we think morality is about telling women they can't talk in church, owning and beating slaves, or giving your daughters up for gang rape. The OT is one of the most violent, xenophobic, misogynistic books ever written. Most Christians realize and will readily admit this.

At best you can pull some good stories out of the NT, but even that is based on interpretation and there is plenty of craziness in there too, including Jesus' support for the laws of the OT, Jesus explaining how most people will go to hell, how the Jews will be cast out with the wailing and the gnashing of teeth, a perplexing story about Jesus sending demons into pigs, Jesus saying he didn't come for peace but to set family members against each other...most of it has very little to do with modern moral issues.

If you cherry pick and focus in on "love thy neighbor" and "turn the other cheek" you can maybe say some good lessons can be pulled from the NT. But mostly the message is still simply "worship me or burn in hell."

And anecdotally, how do we see people behaving who follow the Bible? There were generations of Americans who owned, beat and raped slaves quoting Bible verse to justify their actions. The attrocities of the Catholic Church in the past...following the Bible as their moral guidline...are well documented including the millions murdered in the crusades and the inquisition, and hundreds of thousands more in the Pope-led witch hunts. "Biblical Morality" didn't stop thousands of priests from molesting children, nor did it stop Pope after Pope from covering up the problem and protecting the molesters. Do Biblical followers divorce less frequently, or cheat on their wive less frequently. No, in fact studies show Christians divorce more frequently than atheists, and there is no different in the statistics on infidelity. And today those that follow the Bible the most closely are out holding "God Hates ****" signs, protesting gay rights, while Christian politicans and other Christian leaders say things like we should put gays and lesbians behind fences, dropping them food every now and then (Charles Worley) or that the government should be killing gay people (Curtis Knapp), and refuse to issue legal mariage licenses (Kim Davis).

How could any of this have happened when these entire societies were being morally governed by the Bible? If the Bible was such a great moral guide, wouldn't we see better behavior from it's adherants? I ask you, where is all this good behavior the Bible causes in it's followers?

 

[Robert.Evans]

There's no evidence, nor has any such belief ever been assumed within the scientific community, that water covered the entire Earth.

It was a model run by Australian scientists, and it appears not accepted then.

 

[Robert.Evans]

The Bible has been very successful as intended, a guide for humanity.

Has it?

Only, I think, if you see what early Israel did wrong. Then we could learn from it...war etc

How are those who follow the Bible more moral, happier, or in any way better than those who don't? I submit that the Bible is an awful guide for humanity. The OT is a complete nightmare and should be thrown right out unles we think morality is about telling women they can't talk in church,

as men weren't supposed to...its respect for the speaker.

owning and beating slaves,

fights, unfortunately, are part of our human nature. We can, and it seems you have, learnt from that. Slaves were not then (or atleast should not have been) in the same sense as we think of. It was to stop their own brother and sister starving etc

or giving your daughters up for gang rape.

or male rape? Which would you choose? what would you do? I know we speak of something that is not relevant now, but what would you do?

The OT is one of the most violent, xenophobic, misogynistic books ever written. Most Christians realize and will readily admit this.

The thing is, it reflects humanity well, don't you think? We have learnt nothing.

At best you can pull some good stories out of the NT, but even that is based on interpretation and there is plenty of craziness in there too, including Jesus' support for the laws of the OT, Jesus explaining how most people will go to hell,

long story, Hell. I wouldn't worry about it.

how the Jews will be cast out with the wailing and the gnashing of teeth, a perplexing story about Jesus sending demons into pigs,

Clue: pigs can swim. Its a parable. That is how he always spoke

Jesus saying he didn't come for peace but to set family members against each other...most of it has very little to do with modern moral issues.

If you cherry pick and focus in on "love thy neighbor" and "turn the other cheek" you can maybe say some good lessons can be pulled from the NT. But mostly the message is still simply "worship me or burn in hell."

Fire, (not in the sense we think of) cleanses...we will all experience that.

And anecdotally, how do we see people behaving who follow the Bible? There were generations of Americans who owned, beat and raped slaves quoting Bible verse to justify their actions. The attrocities of the Catholic Church in the past...following the Bible as their moral guidline...are well documented including the millions murdered in the crusades and the inquisition, and hundreds of thousands more in the Pope-led witch hunts. "Biblical Morality" didn't stop thousands of priests from molesting children, nor did it stop Pope after Pope from covering up the problem and protecting the molesters. Do Biblical followers divorce less frequently, or cheat on their wive less frequently. No, in fact studies show Christians divorce more frequently than atheists, and there is no different in the statistics on infidelity. And today those that follow the Bible the most closely are out holding "God Hates ****" signs, protesting gay rights, while Christian politicans and other Christian leaders say things like we should put gays and lesbians behind fences, dropping them food every now and then (Charles Worley) or that the government should be killing gay people (Curtis Knapp), and refuse to issue legal mariage licenses (Kim Davis).

Atheism has its atrocities as well. You speak not of God now, but man, and his inability to do what is right.

How could any of this have happened when these entire societies were being morally governed by the Bible? If the Bible was such a great moral guide, wouldn't we see better behavior from it's adherants? I ask you, where is all this good behavior the Bible causes in it's followers?

Good question.
Though I think better now than then, but that is a sign of the times I guess

 

[Demonslayer]

Atheism has its atrocities as well. You speak not of God now, but man, and his inability to do what is right.

"Athesism" doesn't really have atrocities because atheism isn't really a thing. No one is out there killing "in the name of nothing."

But atheists as people?? Are there horrible, criminal, terrible people who are atheists? Absolutely, of course there are!! I know just as many a*shole atheists as I do a*shole Christians, a*shole Jews, etc.

In no way am I claiming being atheist creates a better, kinder, more moral person. It is the Christians who claim that following the Bible does such a thing. But we don't see it. Throughout history, and in today's world, Christians behave no more morally than atheists, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc.

Religion does not cause people to be good, it has zero effect on morality. The premise was "the Bible is a good guide for humanity" and my statement is that it is not, it has no positive effect on good behavior, nor has it ever.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Atheism has its atrocities as well. You speak not of God now, but man, and his inability to do what is right.

yes

"Athesism" doesn't really have atrocities because atheism isn't really a thing. No one is out there killing "in the name of nothing."

but the fight is the same. No one is logically going to say, 'In the name of atheism', are they, so it doesn't mean anything. It is the desire to do things that count, no matter what you cry out when you do that and in that sense, it lies with both sides.

But atheists as people?? Are there horrible, criminal, terrible people who are atheists? Absolutely, of course there are!! I know just as many a*shole atheists as I do a*shole Christians, a*shole Jews, etc.

In no way am I claiming being atheist creates a better, kinder, more moral person. It is the Christians who claim that following the Bible does such a thing. But we don't see it. Throughout history, and in today's world, Christians behave no more morally than atheists, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc.

Okay.
I guess it would depend on who you meet. I have been on forums where atheist are who constantly use the 'f' word. Believers didn't. Though I take your point, historically and now....there is a lot to be desired on both sides.

Religion does not cause people to be good, it has zero effect on morality. The premise was "the Bible is a good guide for humanity" and my statement is that it is not, it has no positive effect on good behavior, nor has it ever.

God has made a positive effect on me (without going into details) and I know of many others besides. But the bible is only a help in that sense. It comes from the person, whether the bible is read or not.

 

[Demonslayer]

or male rape? Which would you choose? what would you do? I know we speak of something that is not relevant now, but what would you do?

You're seriously asking me if I would hand over my virgin daughters to be raped in order to avoid an adult male sodomizing another adult male? Seriously?

Later on Lot has sex with both of his daughters and impregnates them. You're going to be very, very hard pressed to find a positive moral lesson in the story of Lot.

 

[Robert.Evans]

or male rape? Which would you choose? what would you do? I know we speak of something that is not relevant now, but what would you do?

You're seriously asking me if I would hand over my virgin daughters to be raped in order to avoid an adult male sodomizing another adult male? Seriously?

Later on Lot has sex with both of his daughters and impregnates them. You're going to be very, very hard pressed to find a positive moral lesson in the story of Lot.

I'm not saying I would find a moral message there, that's not my point. I was just asking, if you were in such a predicament, what would you do...allow them to rape women who are biologically designed for s-x or men who or not. Just a question.

 

[metis]

It was a model run by Australian scientists, and it appears not accepted then.

"Models" are not the same as "evidence", plus it begs the question what were these models actually based on?

 

[Robert.Evans]

"Models" are not the same as "evidence", plus it begs the question what were these models actually based on?

Quite so.
I have changed the post to be a little more realistic. Thanks for pointing it out. I take it I can stick with snowball earth

 

[Demonslayer]

No one is logically going to say, 'In the name of atheism', are they, so it doesn't mean anything.

Right exactly. The idea of atheism doesn't drive anyone to do anything, while the concept of an all powerful overlord who you must please or else be damned to eternal torture DOES drive people to do things. The people who carried out the crusades weren't trying to be evil, they thought they were doing the right thing according to the Bible.

The Westboro Baptist Church believe they are following the Bible, and they have Biblical quotes to back them up.

I guess it would depend on who you meet. I have been on forums where atheist are who constantly use the 'f' word. Believers didn't. Though I take your point, historically and now....there is a lot to be desired on both sides.

I think of all the horrible things in the world, using a curse word is at the very bottom of the list. Besides I grew up in a very Catholic family with 7 uncles who used the F word every other sentence. Again, following the Bible doesn't make you swear more or less.

God has made a positive effect on me (without going into details) and I know of many others besides.

That's great and I'm not trying to take that away from you. I know many people who feel the same way, and good for them, that's why we have freedom of religion in this country.

But saying the Bible is a good moral guide is exactly backwards. If you take a moral person and show them the Bible, they will take the good from it and use it to frame their morality. If you take an immoral person and show them the Bible they will still behave immorally.

Nothing will ever be able to explain how an America that was 99% Christian kept, beat and raped slaves as a society for hundreds of years. If the Bible granted us God's morality, how could one of the most God-fearing societies in history commit such evil across the board?

 

[Parsimony]

Good.
I might further add that science says that the planet MIGHT* have been fully covered with water at one time and that it was also 'snowball earth'. So in that sense, it was global, just not as we think.

Snowball Earth is posited to have occurred more than 650 million years ago, way before humans were ever around. So it doesn't have anything to do with Noah or his ark.

 

[Robert.Evans]

No one is logically going to say, 'In the name of atheism', are they, so it doesn't mean anything.

Right exactly. The idea of atheism doesn't drive anyone to do anything, while the concept of an all powerful overlord who you must please or else be damned to eternal torture DOES drive people to do things. The people who carried out the crusades weren't trying to be evil, they thought they were doing the right thing according to the Bible.

The thing is, if an atheist army and a theist army is either side of a ravine ready to fight, it is not illogical to think that the theist army might cry 'God is with us', this idea is unlikely to be shouted by atheist... 'Luck is with us'. It is normal to shout out 'My dad is bigger than your dad' but the end result is that they fight.

The Westboro Baptist Church believe they are following the Bible, and they have Biblical quotes to back them up.

No nothing about them. Take your word for it

I guess it would depend on who you meet. I have been on forums where atheist are who constantly use the 'f' word. Believers didn't. Though I take your point, historically and now....there is a lot to be desired on both sides.

I think of all the horrible things in the world, using a curse word is at the very bottom of the list. Besides I grew up in a very Catholic family with 7 uncles who used the F word every other sentence. Again, following the Bible doesn't make you swear more or less.

okay.
But it should not be the bible you follow but his son, and that should lead to a better person...though I will add, we are still human, with all the frailities that go with it.

God has made a positive effect on me (without going into details) and I know of many others besides.

That's great and I'm not trying to take that away from you. I know many people who feel the same way, and good for them, that's why we have freedom of religion in this country.

But saying the Bible is a good moral guide is exactly backwards. If you take a moral person and show them the Bible, they will take the good from it and use it to frame their morality. If you take an immoral person and show them the Bible they will still behave immorally.

I guess so.

Nothing will ever be able to explain how an America that was 99% Christian kept, beat and raped slaves as a society for hundreds of years. If the Bible granted us God's morality, how could one of the most God-fearing societies in history commit such evil across the board?

But the bible is man's attributes following the God of this aeon, the God of Flesh. It would be normal to think that would happen, unfortunately. We are one of the same with that God, whether we like it or not. It is the higher part of us. Either way, man does the evil, we just seek justification for it..... the bible might well be one way

 

[Robert.Evans]

Snowball Earth is posited to have occurred more than 650 million years ago, way before humans were ever around. So it doesn't have anything to do with Noah or his ark.

I didn't mean that it did. I jsut mean it follows, what I would call, a pattern of things gone by within the consciousness of God.

 

[metis]

But it should not be the bible you follow but his son, and that should lead to a better person...though I will add, we are still human, with all the frailities that go with it.

Let me just comment on this even though it wasn't directed at me.

Even though I'm pretty much a non-theist, I feel that your religion and most religions have a very important service they provide for not only us human individuals but for societies across the globe. Unfortunately, there are also some drawbacks as we well know, but I'm not going to focus on them.

Much like Christian teachings help you, they also help me as a Jew because I agree with most of them-- after all, Jesus was a Jew working mostly from a Jewish paradigm. And I also feel that Muslims are helped by Islamic teachings, Buddhists by Buddhist teachings, etc.

Science is not philosophy nor theology, so each of us in the scientific field can learn from religion and philosophy in regards to morals and values. The ToE only tells us some of the process involved in how we got to where we are today, but it cannot answer how it all "started" (if there ever was a true start) nor does it provide us with how to deal with "the meaning of life". "right v wrong", etc.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You mean the opposite. Carbon dating is done on organic matter, and some inorganic, but mostly it's done on remains.

http://www.radiocarbon.com/about-carbon-dating.htm

Also, it can't be used on samples older than about 50,000 years. Anything older than that, yes, then you have to rely on samples around the fossils/remains instead.

Yes, my bad. Sorry. Had the dumbs that day. This also has implications for dating human remains older than 50,000 years. We should be less than comfortable with saying X skeletal remains may be 2 Million years old because a nearby rock is that "old".

 

[Ouroboros]

Yes, my bad. Sorry. Had the dumbs that day. This also has implications for dating human remains older than 50,000 years. We should be less than comfortable with saying X skeletal remains may be 2 Million years old because a nearby rock is that "old".

Sure. When dating older fossils, there are more considerations to account for. If I remember correctly, there are some other dating methods that can be used the older fossils. Calcium or something or other.

 

[David1967]

I believe that the biblical story of creation doesn't describe God's original creation of Earth, but it actually describes the recreation of the Earth 6,000 years ago by God for the benefit of newly formed life who would have souls such as Adam, Eve and their descendants. I believe that according to the first few verses of Holy scripture in the book of Genesis, the Earth already had existed with water during the first day of its recreation. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters" - (Genesis 1:1-2)

I believe there was an older version of Earth that God had destroyed with a cloud of darkness and water, so that He could recreate the Earth with the right conditions for us humans who have souls. I think the first chapter of Genesis is widely misinterpreted as a narrative about the creation of Earth; whereas, it should be correctly interpreted as a narrative about the recreation of the Earth with more favorable conditions for human souls to exist. Does anybody else agree that the first few verses in the book of Genesis have been widely misinterpreted as a creation narrative; whereas, it should be correctly interpreted as a recreation narrative?

What you are describing is what I have heard called the Gap theory. That there was an older earth here before man that God destroyed for whatever reason, we don't know. Is it possible? I suppose it is, but as far as I know we don't have any evidence to back it up. The fossil record is very problematic for the 6000 year old earth believers. I hunt fossils as a hobby and the fact is you don't find Jurassic fossils in Cambrian layers and vice versa. Personally, I don't see how man was designed to live in the same age as say T REX. We would have been snack food at the very least. And according to the fossil record there have been several mass extinctions on this earth. The Permian was worse than the Cretaceous. So how many times did God erase life and start over? God is a creator by His very nature and can do things in any time frame he chooses. I seriously doubt He sat in the dark till 6000 years ago and suddenly said "I think I'll make something today." God is not limited as we are.

 

[viole]

What you are describing is what I have heard called the Gap theory. That there was an older earth here before man that God destroyed for whatever reason, we don't know. Is it possible? I suppose it is, but as far as I know we don't have any evidence to back it up. The fossil record is very problematic for the 6000 year old earth believers. I hunt fossils as a hobby and the fact is you don't find Jurassic fossils in Cambrian layers and vice versa. Personally, I don't see how man was designed to live in the same age as say T REX. We would have been snack food at the very least. And according to the fossil record there have been several mass extinctions on this earth. The Permian was worse than the Cretaceous. So how many times did God erase life and start over? God is a creator by His very nature and can do things in any time frame he chooses. I seriously doubt He sat in the dark till 6000 years ago and suddenly said "I think I'll make something today." God is not limited as we are.

i agree. i also seriously doubt He sat in the dark till 13.7 billions years ago and suddenly said "I think I'll make something today".

Ciao

- viole