Topic awaiting preservation: Evolution vs. Creationism (Page 2 of 13)

quote:

---

Ruski said:

do you realize the god you worship actually has a begining?

---

If He does, He hasn't revealed it to me yet. I don't really think that He has a beginning like we think of, I believe it is something very different from our beginnings, but then I could be wrong.

quote:

---

Ruski said:

later it all developed into male dominant dieties

---

Actually, there are three major religions that stem from the same general God belief: Christianity, Judeism, and Islam. They all stem from the same God and all have generally the same garden of Eden, and all have the same belief in one male God from the beginning. Actually later it developed into the worship of the Ashern poles with the Jews (I don't know much about Islam, I'm just starting that research), and the Virgin Mary with the Christans. The female aspect (excluding the Holy Spirit) came after God's revelations.

quote:

---

Ruski said:

The documents were specifically chosen by Roman rulers.

---

Not entirely true. I have been researching this since DL told me about those other books. I really had no idea about them before I looked into it and I was quite confused. First thing is that the NT cannon books were not chosen by the "Roman Rulers," they were actually in use for several hundered years before they officially became "the cannon." The "Roman Leaders" only confimed the books the churches had been using for several centuries, and combined them into a recognized book. Second, have you ever read any of the books that were exculded from the NT? I haven't, but the source I looked into had a man who had read most of them, and he said that there are errors in the books that are there, but difficult to see to someone untrained in grammar and reasoning. He claimed it was easy for him to see the differences, but would be harder for those that read them. Unless you know what is in the book, there really isn't any basis for asking the question of why it wasn't included, it is just throwing names around. If you have a specific book, I am sure there are reasons why that book wasn't included. If you want to include it; it is your bible that is entirely your right and opinion. You will only have to answer to God.

As for Jesus' image changing, it happens. So many rulers and influential people have had personage crisis that the fact of Jesus having many faces is not much of a surprise to me. I personally believe that the only thing close to the true picture of Jesus is in the Shroud of Turin (if you believe in it).

quote:

---

Ruski said:

There is so much more you simply are unaware of, it saddens me. The worth part
is, so is 75% of the world.

---

You are right, I don't know much. I try to discover as much on this world as I can, but I really don't know too much. Neither does anyone else on this Earht for that matter. That is why I rely on God to reveal to me what I need when I need it.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

I can and will remove your "god" from science.

---

About this WS, I meant that since God is in all science and all science is written by God (according to my faith) I believe that those two subjects are entertwined. If you do not believe that, that is your beliefs.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

It is also a polite way of telling me to shut up.

---

No, no, no. I'm really sorry if you took it that way. I actually want you to speak to me, I will explain why...

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

You are demonstrating here, that you are not open-minded,

---

You're right, if have been close minded too much. I guess I have the wrong approach to things. The thing is though, that my beliefs are rooted to my faith. My faith is that my beliefs about God will never significantly change. I love hearing others opinions about faith and God. I may not take those beliefs as my own, at least not all of them, but I love to hear them.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

I decided to put it all in one area, so that I could reference it in the future,
as the case comes up

---

Good idea.

Okay, as for my contradictive nature...I do not know everything God does. If you correct me, then I needed it, but God cannot be corrected. His word is truth to me, so that is why I say my words aren't truth. Does that clear it up better?

As for your other point I will discuss that later...

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

no Gideon..thats not what i am talking about...forget islam judaims and christianity for a moment look back...way back.

Etruscian, Aegean, Messapotanian, pre dominant fertility goddesses etc.

those are the sources your god has been depended upon for it's development. Imaginary Characteristics of Jesus follows the same pattern of "hero" as any other mythological heros you reject. Virgin birth, growth, maturity, test, death, ressurection etc..

so many past god's and heros followed the same pattern even before development of judaims and christianity.



btw I am done here man, it's hopeless to keep explaining you things, because you are not looking for the fact but rather for some sort of confirmation of your existent beliefs.


and you did be surprised how much people know on this Earth already...

(Edited by Ruski on 11-25-2004 01:54)

I would like to quote some scriptures and see if anyone has the same reaction when I saw them.

Job 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

Isa 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

Psa 139:16 Your eyes saw my body. In your book they were all written, The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there were none of them.

Ecc 1:7 All the rivers run into the sea, yet the sea is not full. To the place where the rivers flow, there they flow again.


Here is a sampling of some amazing insights that predate Julius Ceaser and King Nabonidus of Babylon. The earth is suspended on nothing, it is a circle where its inhabitants are insectlike in appearence and microscopic in comparison to the universe or on a smaller scale solar system.
Our body parts are "written" in a "book" called deoxyribonucleic acid. And the cycle of water in hebrew poetic terms are presented in total accuracy.

I have mentioned these verses to see wether any other religion that predates these scriptures gave such illuminating information that would and should bring a sense of awe to the author of this earth and its inhabitants, God(YHVH)

Uh.......what?

What those scriptures present are mostly simple observation completely lacking in specificity and hardly "illuminating" in any sense whatsoever.

From climbing to the top of a hill and looking at a city below, humans appear like insects. The idea of the earth floating in nothingness and surrounded by a shroud-like heaven or cosmos is certainly commonplace.

Watching how water flows and seeing that it comes and goes is not any sort of startling revelation...

I don't know what it is you think you see represented in these quites, but they are ceratainly not resonating with any sort of scientific acuity...and not relevent in any way that I can see.

quote:

---

Ruski said:

btw I am done here man, it's hopeless to keep explaining you things, because you are not looking for the fact but rather for some sort of confirmation of your existent beliefs.

---

good thing none of us have ever felt that way explaining things to you

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

quote:

---

Ruski said:

so many past god's and heros followed the same pattern even before development
of judaims and christianity.

---

That is quite true. I can think of a few Greek gods that did that, but I don't know of many Aegean, Etruscan, or Messapotanian gods. They could have easily done those things too. The only thing is that the "gods" that did those things weren't real people. There was no conclusive evidence for them (at least not to my knowledge). Jesus, on the other hand, was a real person, He did die a real death for us and He did rise from the dead because over 500 people saw His physical body before He ascended to Heaven.

Valpal, those are all possible explainations of those verses (if you look really hard for DNA). I interpreted that Psalm more for a predetermined path than for DNA, but that is your opinion.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

Healing miracles should be no different in comparison to a miraculous ressurection of someone who has been dead for over 24 hours. Yet, all these false christians do is perpetuate disbelief in God by claiming they can speak in "tongues" and have their members offer false predictions as to what their calling in life will be.

So, unfortunately these kind of falsehoods cause people to misunderstand Genesis and to not take it seriously.

In my next post I'll share some thoughts on the creation account and let YOU decide from a spiritual point of veiw wether creation believers can be taken seriously or not.

Gideon you simply do not have a confirmation of any sort about your Jesus' ressurection, except for the biblical stories. And they are nothing, since there are plenty of (here we go again) Pagan, Messapotanian, Egyptian, etc. and other beliefs that predominated Judaism and Christianity, and had similar writtings. Such as a ressurection of Osiris after he was killed. Same goes for Buddha, there were alot of people who "saw his ascending into nirvana".

Bah...

just food for thought, but if christ wasn't resurrected why didn't the romans just produce the body and shut the whole mess down right then?

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

We've had that conversation before as well Fig.

There are a variety of reasons that can explain the Romans' inaction. I am not clear on some things, so part of my post here will be questions.

For starters - who took Jesus' body down and entombed him? Is it not entirely possible that the Romans simply did not know where Jesus' body was?

It could very well have been that the Romans simply did not care enough about it in the beginning. He was dead, and that's all there was to it. A few crazy people running around saying he was still alive wouldn't really have been a huge issue....I'm certain it wasn't a first. It's not like as soon as Jesus died, up sprang this monumental force called christianity hammering at the Roman empire. It took time for anything substantial to happen.

Is it not also possible, and quite probable, that Jesus' body was hidden by people attempting to propagate the concept of resurrection? It would be rather idiotic to claim resurrection without first securing and hiding/ disposing of the body...

The fact that the bible says there were '500 witnesses' means absolutely nothing. It sure makes things sound better though.

Of course, if Jesus were resurrected....why didn't he just produce himself to the people at large so that his divinity would be undoubtable?

It makes no sense that he would allow only a small number of people to see him and then disappear without ever making an appearance again.

Fig why don't you tell me why Romans/Greeks/Egyptians/Hindus worship all those deities, which ones you would consider to be fake/made up by people in first place.


As to why chrisitanity was adopted as official religion by Roman empire there is plenty of great historical books related to that subject, go look em up at library.

thanks ruski, i'm rather familiar with constantine and the story tho. my comment didn't have a thing to do with why the roman empire adopted christianity as a religion anyway, the event in question happened a few hundred years before the roman empire did so.

and DL, i know we have, tho i will make the point that his execution was by roman authorities and the tomb was guarded by roman guards (a factual account as far as we know). it would seem that SOMETHING happened tho, wouldn't it, over a fairly short period of time christianity did have a rather huge impact. for anyone who might be interested there's a dvd from a&e called "the first thousand years of christianity" that covers the events that happened from a historic perspective, really cool stuff to hear the facts from a fairly unbiased source.

really just tossing out some random observations to make the point that no matter what the viewpoint of some we don't know the whole story. the phenomenally derogatory tone of some people on here gets really old (yes ruski, that means you), there's a lot of intelligent people with a variety of beliefs here and i get a bit tired of being made to be an idiot for having faith in something that others don't believe in. when it all comes down to it the facts of all this won't get us anywhere in this anyway, either side can shred the others with "evidence" of varying accuracy (a lot of which can't be proven) and people are going to believe what they believe.

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

(Edited by Fig on 11-26-2004 05:44)

quote:

---

the phenomenally derogatory tone of some people on here gets really old

---

I won't argue with that.



Now, back to the tomb - you say 'over a fairly short period of time' christianity had a huge impact. Well, that's a very relative phrase 'fairly short'. In hisorical terms - absolutely. But in terms of things being a big enough issue to force the Roman empire to produce a body, we're talking quite a long time.

Now, another question that I have no idea - how long would gaurds have been posted at Jesus' tomb?

V -- Roman guards would have been there all night into the morning and if they fell asleep would have been executed, but the Bible account says the jewish heirarchy paid them to be quiet. How the Bible writer knew this is not mentioned . Some ideas would be that he saw the guards stationed there and after the body of Jesus disappeared and the guards were not punished but silenced for derilection of duty, or the writer had a inside source like Josephus of Arimathea or Nicodemus to tell him the inside story. Lastly, he could have been inspired by God to know any or all of these ideas is possible.

As far as how long the guards would have been posted in front of Jesus tomb is speculative but I'm sure not longer than a month. Why? Because, the body would show advance signs of corruption by then.

to dl-44,

Show me one book or manuscript or papyrus or scroll that predates the writings of the Bible and that show this scientific insight.

The water cycle was not touched on by any none person until the Rennassaince and as far as the Earth hanging upon nothing that was not fully understood until the 19th century.

The problem with most people is they take for granted the scientific knowledge of the times and somehow expect the Bible to dicuss it in full detail. This has never been the purpose God intended the Bible for.

Having said that, the Scriptures do ACCURATELY touch on scientific facts that only we living today could truly appreciate.

A good example of this is a person who likes music but doesn't play versus someone who loves music and knows how to play and write music. The first person could never truly appreciate music as much as the second because of lacking the ability to truly immerse themself in the art of music.

All expressions starting with V ? are my comments based on the commentary provided from Insight on the Scriptures, vol. 1. And a Britannica Encyclopedia article on atmosphere. I hope you find this informative and beneficial.


V ? As a spiritual book and not as a science book the Bible clearly identifies who the Creator is. And that aeons ago God caused the heavens and earth to come into existence. Science has said there was a beginning and that it was longer than 6000 years ago and that at one time there was no space or matter.
Scientists have likened the initial birth of our universe like a carbonated bubble that just formed inexplicably in nothing and expanded rapidly forming quarks, protons, electrons, neutrons all of which I believe, although, none of them were there to see it and I have never seen a quark or the like. It sounds reasonable and in no way casts doubt that God is the progenitor of our unique and awesome universe.

Jehovah reminded Job that He had taken specific steps in founding the earth and barricading the sea and indicated that there exist ?statutes of the heavens.? (Job 38:1, 4-11, 31-33)

V ? ?Statues of the heavens? sounds a lot like what people in the last 400 years are just starting to appreciate in the study of ?the laws of physics?. ?Barricading the sea? certainly could be compared to the concept of sea level.

Chapter 2 of Genesis, from verse 5 onward, is a parallel account that takes up at a point in the third ?day,? after dry land appeared but before land plants were created. It supplies details not furnished in the broad outline found in Genesis chapter 1. The inspired Record tells of six creative periods called ?days,? and of a seventh period or ?seventh day? in which time God desisted from earthly creative works and proceeded to rest. (Ge 2:1-3) While the Genesis account of creative activity relating to the earth does not set forth detailed botanical and zoological distinctions such as those current today, the terms employed therein adequately cover the major divisions of life and show that these were created and made so that they reproduce only according to their respective ?kinds.??Ge 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25

Day No. Creative Works Texts
1 Light; division between day and night Ge 1:3-5
2 Expanse, a division between waters
beneath the expanse and waters above it Ge 1:6-8
3 Dry land; vegetation Ge 1:9-13
4 Heavenly luminaries become discernible
from earth Ge 1:14-19
5 Aquatic souls and flying creatures Ge 1:20-23
6 Land animals; man Ge 1:24-31
Genesis 1:1, 2 relates to a time before the six ?days? outlined above. When these ?days? commenced, the sun, moon, and stars were already in existence, their creation being referred to at Genesis 1:1. However, prior to these six ?days? of creative activity ?the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep.? (Ge 1:2) Apparently, a swaddling band of cloud layers still enveloped the earth, preventing light from reaching its surface.

When God said on Day One, ?Let light come to be,? diffused light evidently penetrated the cloud layers even though the sources of that light could not yet be discerned from the earth?s surface. It seems that this was a gradual process, as is indicated by translator J. W. Watts: ?And gradually light came into existence.? (Ge 1:3, A Distinctive Translation of Genesis) God brought about a division between the light and the darkness, calling the light Day and the darkness Night. This indicates that the earth was rotating on its axis as it revolved around the sun, so that its hemispheres, eastern and western, could enjoy periods of light and darkness.?Ge 1:3, 4.

V ? Recently NASA has sent a probe to Titan where they are ?looking? through the thick veil of clouds that cover it. No, distinguishable sun or moonlight can penetrate to its surface. Similarly, Venus is another example where the sun?s image can not be discerned only its light. Come to your own conclusions.

On Day Two God made an expanse by causing a division to occur ?between the waters and the waters.? Some waters remained on the earth, but a great amount of water was raised high above the surface of the earth, and in between these two there came to be an expanse. God called the expanse Heaven, but this was with relation to the earth, as the waters suspended above the expanse are not said to have enclosed stars or other bodies of the outer heavens.?Ge 1:6-8.

V ? Scientists say, the immediate heaven, is a ?gaseous envelope that surrounds the earth.?

?Near the surface it has a well-defined chemical composition. In addition to gases, the atmosphere contains solid and liquid particles in suspension. Scientists divide the atmosphere into five main layers: in ascending order, the troposphere (surface to 6-8 mi, or 10-13 km); the stratosphere (4-11 mi, or 6-17 km, to about 30 mi, or 50 km); the mesosphere (31-50 mi, or 50-80 km); the thermosphere (50-300 mi, or 80-480 km); and the exosphere (from 300 mi and gradually dissipating). Most of the atmosphere consists of neutral atoms and molecules, but in the ionosphere a significant fraction is electrically charged. The ionosphere begins near the top of the stratosphere but is most distinct in the thermosphere.?

So, a person today who goes to the fringes of space could say he traveled through 5 heavenly layers to the 6th level. And still he could be an atheist or a person who only believes in evolution and doesn?t believe in the Bible or an afterlife. However, my point is in Deuteronomy 10:14 it reads, ? Behold, to Yahweh your God belongs heaven and the heaven of heavens, the earth, with all that is therein. Yes, the Bible said long ago there was levels to the heavens above. Not to teach science but to show who the true owner of all creation is.

In addition to this, the word of God says he divided the waters creating a water canopy above. This canopy of water was most likely used in the flood and in this way the scriptures say the ?heavens? and ?earth? were ?destroyed?. Today, we see that there is enough water to have flooded the earth; that physics and our own intelligent minds, tell us, that above us, are billions of gallons of ?solid and liquid particles in suspension? ; It could have been so dense that visible light could barely penetrate to the surface of the planet. Is all this possible ? That is for each person to decide.

Day Three by God?s miracle-working power the waters on the earth were brought together and dry land appeared, God calling it Earth. It was also on this day that, through no chance factors or evolutionary processes, God acted to superimpose the life principle upon atoms of matter, so that grass, vegetation, and fruit trees were brought into existence. Each of these three general divisions was capable of reproducing according to its ?kind.??Ge 1:9-13
.
The divine will concerning luminaries was accomplished on Day Four, it being stated: ?God proceeded to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars. Thus God put them in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth, and to dominate by day and by night and to make a division between the light and the darkness.? (Ge 1:16-18) In view of the description of these luminaries, the greater luminary was quite apparently the sun and the lesser luminary the moon, though the sun and moon are not specifically named in the Bible until after its account of the Flood of Noah?s day.?Ge 15:12; 37:9.
Previously, on the first ?day,? the expression ?Let light come to be? was used. The Hebrew word there used for ?light? is ́ohr, meaning light in a general sense. But on the fourth ?day,? the Hebrew word changes to ma́ohr', which refers to a luminary or source of light. (Ge 1:14) So, on the first ?day? diffused light evidently penetrated the swaddling bands, but the sources of that light could not have been seen by an earthly observer. Now, on the fourth ?day,? things evidently changed.

It is also noteworthy that at Genesis 1:16 the Hebrew verb bará', meaning ?create,? is not used. Instead, the Hebrew verb `asah', meaning ?make,? is employed. Since the sun, moon, and stars are included in ?the heavens? mentioned in Genesis 1:1, they were created long before Day Four. On the fourth day God proceeded to ?make? these celestial bodies occupy a new relationship toward earth?s surface and the expanse above it. When it is said, ?God put them in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth,? this would indicate that they now became discernible from the surface of the earth, as though they were in the expanse. Also, the luminaries were to ?serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years,? thus later providing guidance for man in various ways.?Ge 1:14.

Day Five was marked by the creation of the first nonhuman souls on earth. Not just one creature purposed by God to evolve into other forms, but literally swarms of living souls were then brought forth by divine power. It is stated: ?God proceeded to create the great sea monsters and every living soul that moves about, which the waters swarmed forth according to their kinds, and every winged flying creature according to its kind.? Pleased with what He had produced, God blessed them and, in effect, told them to ?become many,? which was possible, for these creatures of many different family kinds were divinely endowed with the ability to reproduce ?according to their kinds.??Ge 1:20-23.

V ? It is interesting the order of creation: a beginning, then the heavens, next, our sun and moon, then land, following this plant life then sea and air life, next animal and last human life. How eloquent and simple this explanation is ! As if a loving parent was giving his child an answer to its how and why questions . Yet, science amazingly confirms this creative order in text books today. Perhaps not as simplistic, but certainly accurate for its time 3500 years ago.

On Day Six ?God proceeded to make the wild beast of the earth according to its kind and the domestic animal according to its kind and every moving animal of the ground according to its kind,? such work being good, as were all of God?s previous creative works.?Ge 1:24, 25.

Toward the end of the sixth day of creative activity, God brought into existence an entirely new kind of creature, superior to the animals even though lower than the angels. This was man, created in God?s image and after his likeness. While Genesis 1:27 briefly states concerning humankind ?male and female he [God] created them,? the parallel account at Genesis 2:7-9 shows that Jehovah God formed man out of the dust of the ground, blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul, for whom a paradise home and food were provided. In this case Jehovah used the elements of the earth in creative work and then, having formed man, He created the female of humankind using one of Adam?s ribs as a base. (Ge 2:18-25) With the creation of the woman, man was complete as a ?kind.??Ge 5:1, 2.
God then blessed mankind, telling the first man and his wife: ?Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving upon the earth.? (Ge 1:28; compare Ps 8:4-8.) For humankind and other earthly creatures, God made adequate provision by giving them ?all green vegetation for food.?

Reporting on the results of such creative work, the inspired Record states: ?After that God saw everything he had made and, look! it was very good.? (Ge 1:29-31) The sixth day having come to its successful conclusion and God having completed this creative work, ?he proceeded to rest on the seventh day from all his work that he had made.??Ge 2:1-3.

Concluding the review of accomplishments on each of the six days of creative activity is the statement, ?And there came to be evening and there came to be morning,? a first, second, third day, and so forth. (Ge 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31) Since the length of each creative day exceeded 24 hours (as will be discussed later), this expression does not apply to literal night and day but is figurative. During the evening period things would be indistinct; but in the morning they would become clearly discernible. During the ?evening,? or beginning, of each creative period, or ?day,? God?s purpose for that day, though fully known to him, would be indistinct to any angelic observers. However, when the ?morning? arrived there would be full light as to what God had purposed for that day, it having been accomplished by that time.?Compare Pr 4:18.

Length of Creative Days. The Bible does not specify the length of each of the creative periods. Yet all six of them have ended, it being said with respect to the sixth day (as in the case of each of the preceding five days): ?And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a sixth day.? (Ge 1:31) However, this statement is not made regarding the seventh day, on which God proceeded to rest, indicating that it continued. (Ge 2:1-3) Also, more than 4,000 years after the seventh day, or God?s rest day, commenced, Paul indicated that it was still in progress. At Hebrews 4:1-11 he referred to the earlier words of David (Ps 95:7, 8, 11) and to Genesis 2:2 and urged: ?Let us therefore do our utmost to enter into that rest.? By the apostle?s time, the seventh day had been continuing for thousands of years and had not yet ended. The Thousand Year Reign of Jesus Christ, who is Scripturally identified as ?Lord of the sabbath? (Mt 12:8), is evidently part of the great sabbath, God?s rest day. (Re 20:1-6) This would indicate the passing of thousands of years from the commencement of God?s rest day to its end. The week of days set forth at Genesis 1:3 to 2:3, the last of which is a sabbath, seems to parallel the week into which the Israelites divided their time, observing a sabbath on the seventh day thereof, in keeping with the divine will. (Ex 20:8-11) And, since the seventh day has been continuing for thousands of years, it may reasonably be concluded that each of the six creative periods, or days, was at least thousands of years in length.

That a day can be longer than 24 hours is indicated by Genesis 2:4, which speaks of all the creative periods as one ?day.? Also indicative of this is Peter?s inspired observation that ?one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.? (2Pe 3:8) Ascribing not just 24 hours but a longer period of time, thousands of years, to each of the creative days better harmonizes with the evidence found in the earth itself.


Created Things Preceded Man?s Inventions. Thousands of years before many of man?s inventions appeared on the scene, Jehovah had provided his creations with their own versions of them. For example, the flight of birds preceded by millenniums the development of airplanes. The chambered nautilus and the cuttlefish use flotation tanks to descend and ascend in the ocean as submarines do. Octopus and squid employ jet propulsion. Bats and dolphins are experts with sonar. Several reptiles and sea birds have their own built-in ?desalination plants? that enable them to drink seawater.
By ingeniously designed nests and their use of water, termites air-condition their homes. Microscopic plants, insects, fish, and trees use their own form of ?antifreeze.? Small fractions of temperature change are sensed by the built-in thermometers of some snakes, mosquitoes, mallee birds, and brush turkeys. Hornets, wasps, and yellow jackets make paper.
Thomas Edison is credited with inventing the electric light bulb, but its loss of energy through heat is a drawback. Jehovah?s creations?sponges, fungi, bacteria, glowworms, insects, fish?produce cold light and in many colors.

Many migrating birds not only have compasses in their heads but they also have biological clocks. Some microscopic bacteria have rotary motors that they can run forward or in reverse.

It is not without good reason that Psalm 104:24 says: ?How many your works are, O Jehovah! All of them in wisdom you have made. The earth is full of your productions.?

Some persons seek to associate the Biblical account of creation with mythological pagan accounts, such as the well-known Babylonian Creation Epic. Actually, there were various creation stories in ancient Babylon, but the one that has become well known is a myth having to do with Marduk, Babylon?s national god. Briefly, the story tells of the existence of the goddess Tiamat and the god Apsu, who became the parents of other deities. The activities of these gods became so distressing to Apsu that he determined to destroy them. However, Apsu was killed by one of these gods, Ea, and when Tiamat sought to avenge Apsu, she was killed by Ea?s son Marduk, who then split her body, using half of it to form the sky and using the other half in connection with the earth?s establishment. Marduk?s subsequent acts included creating mankind (with Ea?s aid), using the blood of another god, Kingu, the director of Tiamat?s hosts.

V ? Again, a scientific and honest mind would not really consider the myths of creation by other national religions on par with the biblical account. Clearly, the God of the Holy Bible is shown in complete control and his creative actions are not chaotic, but purposeful and orderly.


Did the Bible borrow from Babylonian creation stories?
In his book, P. J. Wiseman points out that, when the Babylonian creation tablets were first discovered, some scholars expected further discovery and research to show that there was a correspondency between them and the Genesis account of creation. Some thought that it would become apparent that the Genesis account was borrowed from the Babylonian. However, further discovery and research have merely made apparent the great gulf between the two accounts. They do not parallel each other. Wiseman quotes The Babylonian Legends of the Creation and the Fight Between Bel and the Dragon, issued by the Trustees of the British Museum, who hold that ?the fundamental conceptions of the Babylonian and Hebrew accounts are essentially different.? He himself observes: ?It is more than a pity that many theologians, instead of keeping abreast of modern archaeological research, continue to repeat the now disproved theory of Hebrew ?borrowings? from Babylonian sources.??Creation Revealed in Six Days, London, 1949, p. 58.

While some have pointed to what seemed to them to have been similarities between the Babylonian epic and the Genesis account of creation, it is readily apparent from the preceding consideration of the Biblical creation narrative and the foregoing epitome of the Babylonian myth that they are not really similar. Therefore, a detailed analysis of them side by side is unnecessary. However, in considering seeming similarities and differences (such as the order of events) in these accounts, Professor George A. Barton observed: ?A more important difference lies in the religious conceptions of the two. The Babylonian poem is mythological and polytheistic. Its conception of deity is by no means exalted. Its gods love and hate, they scheme and plot, fight and destroy. Marduk, the champion, conquers only after a fierce struggle, which taxes his powers to the utmost. Genesis, on the other hand, reflects the most exalted monotheism. God is so thoroughly the master of all the elements of the universe, that they obey his slightest word. He controls all without effort. He speaks and it is done. Granting, as most scholars do, that there is a connection between the two narratives, there is no better measure of the inspiration of the Biblical account than to put it side by side with the Babylonian. As we read the chapter in Genesis today, it still reveals to us the majesty and power of the one God, and creates in the modern man, as it did in the ancient Hebrew, a worshipful attitude toward the Creator.??Archaeology and the Bible, 1949, pp. 297, 298.

Regarding ancient creation myths in general, it has been stated: ?No myth has yet been found which explicitly refers to the creation of the universe, and those concerned with the organization of the universe and its cultural processes, the creation of man and the establishment of civilization are marked by polytheism and the struggles of deities for supremacy in marked contrast to the Heb. monotheism of Gn. 1-2.??New Bible Dictionary, edited by J. Douglas, 1985, p. 247

quote:

---

The problem with most people is they take for granted the scientific knowledge of the times and somehow expect the Bible to dicuss it in full detail.

---

I understand fairly well the 'science of the time'.

The problem I see with your approach to this is that you take a *very* simplsitic idea that is touched on only vaguely, and take it to mean something more complex, in the way we understand things scientifically today.

For starters, the earth is not "hung from nothing". It is in orbit around the sun. *this* was not understood until galileo's time (the knowledge of which he was condemned for by christianity, I might add...).

The idea of the earth floating in a void was a common concept in many mythologies. The idea of the heavens covering the earth like a shroud was also very common. It is also, like the idea of the earth being suspended from nothing, scientifically incorrect - so I really don't see what your point is in this vein...

.

Ok, the gaurds would have been there for apr. a day? So....in other words, the gaurds presence is irrelevent in the bigger picture of creating the story of Jesus' resurrection.

.


I have not read the entirety of your last post. I will when I have time...



(Edited by DL-44 on 11-26-2004 23:41)

quote:

---

Now, back to the tomb - you say 'over a fairly short period of time' christianity had a huge impact. Well, that's a very relative phrase 'fairly short'. In hisorical terms - absolutely. But in terms of things being a big enough issue to force the Roman empire to produce a body, we're talking quite a long time.

---

true, a few hundred years is a significant chunk in any society. however, the time for christianity being officially adopted by rome is significantly longer than the time it took for it to make an impact on roman society. major persecution of christianity in rome began in the mid-60s AD, about 30 years after christ's death and after paul and other apostles had already created quite a stir across the roman empire. in a non-media based society that's a rather short period of time.

i don't know historically speaking or with regards to roman rules how long the guards would've been posted for (other than the biblical account which says they were there that third night), but considering the issue of jesus' resurrection was a widely discussed and highly volatile comment i would say its safe to assume that roman officials would've been certain to post the guards for at the least several days following his execution.

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

(Edited by Fig on 11-27-2004 20:37)

Please show me some references as an example of the earth unsupported by nothing and the water cycle discussed in ancient texts.

I doubt you will find anything at all. As far as the heavens layers these are discussed in context of Genesis describing an ancient atmosphere being created not some spirtualized heavens as you may have assumed.

Please, show me an ancient source that gives such insightful remarks.

And as usual, your quick repartee's are void of any real substance or reflection on what is being said.

For instance, ancient people used word pictures in there daily intercourse. Today, we in a limited way still do. But, most of what we write or type or speak is much more abstract in comparison.

A good example, of a language today that uses word pictures, i.e. metaphors, is Navajo, which means " a creek near planted fields". I spent some time there and came to appreciate how they communicated before they had a written language. Another, proof of my statement is hieroglyphics that are found in many ancient cultures around the world.

So, in discussing the earth as seen from space it would "look" like it was hung upon "nothing". That is metaphorically, speaking.


Get it, Got it, Good

quote:

---

And as usual, your quick repartee's are void of any real substance or reflection on what is being said.

---

Oh.

Then I won't continue wasting my time, as your long-winded posts seem to be void of any actual point or logic.

~shrug~

Here are some things people still say today that is metaphorical.

-- the sun is rising, setting, being swallowed up, shaded, blocked, winking, cool, moving across the sky, following , waning, and who knows what else.

The same could be mentioned of the moon and stars to a certain degree.

A shooting star. A hunters' moon. Once in a blue moon. A new moon. A full moon.

We live in mordern times yet to a certain degree we say what we see not what the reality is.

In spanish they say "tengo fria" which literally translated is "I have cold" whereas in english we say "I am cold.". Do you "see" the difference ? How can a person say they "ARE" cold versus saying they "HAVE" cold.
You can say I am cold and you expect the person listening to you to know that you are not cold but have the feeling of being cold.

Thanks for excusing yourself from a serious subject that you obviously have made your mind up on.

Oh

It figures people like you make UNQUALIFIED statements with nothing to support your claims.

Shame, shame on you.

As far as my "long-winded" post it has QUALIFIED statements that back up what I am saying about Creation.

And I do not see how I can make 2 cent remarks to support and possibly pursuade others to a more open opinion on the matter.

Valpal: First, you should probably get aquainted with the "Edit" function here on the board. That way you don't have to make multiple posts in a row only minutes apart each.

Second, and I realize this may be hard at times, but you should try a more tactful approach to your arguments, at least until people get to know you a little better. If you keep up the way you are going people will simply label you a troll.

Just an impartial opinion.

Ramasax

Valpal1, you are new here. DL has been here since the beginning (or near it ), and his knowledge and insight into many subjects he has put on the line many a time. Both your tone, son, and your offensiveness are not helping you. Now, I don't expect you to know all this. Maybe you should take a step back, and breath a bit, before typing the next reply.

I will get around to tearing you a new one shortly. It might even prove to be fun. That is, if DL doesn't do it first.

quote:

---

As far as the heavens layers these are discussed in context of Genesis describing an ancient atmosphere being created not some spirtualized heavens as you may have assumed.

---

That is particularly naive. No-where is such "described" as an atmosphere as we know it today. The Bible is full of mistakes scientifically. It is one of the main reasons, why it cannot be taken literally. Thus, it is left to take it metaphorically. Of course, there are those who still will not accept that, strangely enough.

quote:

---

Please, show me an ancient source that gives such insightful remarks.

---

.

Well, that didn't take long at all! Amazing what a quick jaunt through Google can do.

This site has everything the mind could desire Links to Creation Myths

Let us start with Babylonian, shall we? The Babylonian Creation Myth Rather interesting, isn't it? And it is a translation from Clay Tablets...that means that it was "written down" Here some excerps

quote:

---

When the gods saw all this they laughed out loud, and they sent him presents. They sent him their thankful tributes. The lord rested; he gazed at the huge body, pondering how to use it, what to create from the dead carcass. He split it apart like a cockle-shell; with the upper half he constructed the arc of sky, he pulled down the bar and set a watch on the waters, so they should never escape. He crossed the sky to survey the infinite distance; he station himself above apsu, that apsu built by Nudimmud over the old abyss which now he surveyed, measuring out and marking in. He stretched the immensity of the firmament, he made Esharra, the Great Palace, to be its earthly image, and Anu and Enlil and Ea had each their right stations.

---

That was fun, indeed!

Oh, and in direct support of DL - NOrse Creation Myth

quote:

---

What the Eddas Say

In the beginning there was the void. And the void was called Ginnungagap. What does Ginnungagap mean? Yawning gap, beginning gap, gap with magical potential, mighty gap; these are a few of the educated guesses.

---

That in response to

quote:

---

Please show me some references as an example of the earth unsupported by nothing and the water cycle discussed in ancient texts.

---

And this

quote:

---

Oh

It figures people like you make UNQUALIFIED statements with nothing to support your claims.

Shame, shame on you.

---

Well, well...how does that shoe leather taste?

(Edited by WebShaman on 11-27-2004 02:40)

I guess you got me. One line from a text that describes butchering a corpse to make heaven and earth is exactly the same as the bible account.

It is according to how one interprets it all. And that isn't just one text - read them ALL before shooting off your mouth! And yes, I did get you, caught you with your pants down, right before you shoved your head so far up it, that I doubt that it will be possible to get it back out.

That is one way of presenting the "round thing in a void" I guess.

You still have yet to answer the Eddas.

You are just a waste of time.

Your right! Really, how eloquently you have responded to my above questions as far as the water cycle and the verse that describes earth hung upon nothing.

What was that???

Oh ! right you didn't answear those questions did you, sir.

Again. what supported the earth in the opinion of the Bablonians? If, you know, please tell me.

I am new to this site but as as hosts you have only used foul remarks!

So, enjoy your poor company for I shall not honor you with mine!

I do not have to tell you (though it is far older than the bible account). If you want it explained, read up on it yourself. The point was (and is, you silly twit) that you said to show you ancient texts that describe such - and I did. The authors of the bible probably just copied what they found along the way - The "hanging in the Void" thing is really quite old, again, as DL said.

You said

quote:

---

I doubt you will find anything at all.

---

I did.

DL suggested the same thing - and guess what? He was right, and you were wrong. Imagine that.

As I said, a waste of time.

quote:

---

Ruski said:

Gideon you simply do not have a confirmation of any sort about your Jesus'
ressurection, except for the biblical stories.

---

Two things:
1.) There were over 500 witnesses, that would definitly hold up in a court of law.
2.)That is where the faith of Christianity takes hold. You are a Christian if you believe that Jesus died for our sins and rose from the grave (doing a very supernatural thing). That is the dividing line of faith. I don't have any proof that Jesus rose from the grave, that is where revelation comes in. My name wasn't proven to me by science it was a revelation from my mother. Same with Jesus' ressurection, it wasn't proven by science, it was revealed to me.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

why didn't he just produce himself to the people at large so that his
divinity would be undoubtable?It makes no sense that he would allow only
a small number of people to see him and then disappear without ever making an
appearance again.

---

Actually 500 people was a large amount back then. There were major decisive battles with less than that number. And He did appear again and again. He rose from the Earth only a while after He rose from the dead.

quote:

---

Fig said:

either side can shred the others with "evidence" of varying accuracy (a lot of
which can't be proven) and people are going to believe what they believe.

---

Thanks Fig. Words of Wisdom. (not to be taken sarcastically)

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

Ok, the gaurds would have been there for apr. a day?

---

Longer, actually. The Roman officials had heard about Jesus speaking about resurrection, and the officials sent guards to make sure that no one fulfilled that prophesy. They would have been the atleast three days since that is how many days Jesus said it would take to raise Him from the dead.

I find it interesting that the officials knew what Jesus had in mind. They even sent guards to stop it. I would assume they sent enough guards for the threat of grave robbery that they thought would occur. Even if Jesus didn't raise from the dead and someone stole His body they would have had to get through guards that knew what that person or persons wanted to do. So, I would guess that if that happened there would be dead guards, but there weren't any.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

No-where is such "described" as an atmosphere as we know it today.

---

That is true, there is no atmosphere like that one today. Ofcourse, if I light a match and it goes out, there will never again be a match exactly like that one again. It happened and is done with. Some things in History may not repeate themselves (atleast I hope not or else we will be in trouble when the next Hitler comes along).

WS-You are awesome. But anyway, about things being described by other cultures, keep in mind that the Torah has in it the tower of Babel, in which every nation was originaly in one place, which would make me come to the conclusion that they were all atleast familiar with what happened at the beginning. Maybe that is why there are so many legends about floods, gardens, etc. Actually about gardens, I found an interesting tid bit from a friend of mine. He is studying Chinese right now, and He said that the Chinese's language has pictograms in it, and I believe it was the pictogram for garden had a tree, two people, and a snake. All key to the story of the Garden of Eden. I find that interesting because the Chinese language is reported to be one of the oldest languages. This kinda supports the thing about the Tower of Babel.

And WS, again I am really sorry about what I said earlier, it was in no means a wish for you to shut up. I love hearing from you. You are one of the most experienced inmates I have encountered (maybe it has something to do with how long you have been on here ). Anyway, if I ever say something like that again feel free to yell at me.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

val:
no offence but, i only read about half of your looooooooooooong post, and thought about it in the interval, and ended up here (don't ask me why):

Revelation 10: 9 And I went unto the angel, and said unto him, Give me the little book. And he said unto me, Take it , and eat it up; and it shall make thy belly bitter, but it shall be in thy mouth sweet as honey.

*passes out bucket of fresh trout for slapping val

*leaves bucket of ice cold Shroom Likker for everyone to enjoy


(Edited by outcydr on 11-27-2004 05:16)

I have a question for you evolution gurus:

How did the human eye form in evolution?
-Amino acids, protozoa, whatever don't have eyes and
-When any part of the human eye is not there it is nonfunctional. You need the entire eye for it to work properly. You can't see with just a pupil for instance.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

I have a question for you evolution gurus:

How did the human eye form in evolution?
-Amino acids, protozoa, whatever don't have eyes and
-When any part of the human eye is not there it is nonfunctional. You need the entire eye for it to work properly. You can't see with just a pupil for instance.

How did it form when it only works when the whole of it is there, not just parts?

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

"when any part of the eye is not there it is nonfunctional"...as we know it today.

Today we humans have two organs that are senstive to electromagnetic radiation.
The eye captures EM radiation within a certain frequency - approx. 700 nm to 400 nm.
Our skin is sensitive to a greater range. Ultraviolet (less than 400 nm) causes "sun burns", while infrared (greater than 700 nm) causes to feel the thing we call "heat".

Our skin is, to the casual observer, nothing at all like the eye, yet these two organs have very similar functions. Of course, the skin is good for lots of other things too -- protecting us from disease, helping to regulate core temperature, keeping our intestines from dragging on the ground... =)

My point is, an eye is nothing more than an organ to collect a certain range of electromagnetic radiation.
The skin too, though it does other things, collects a certain range of electromagnetic radiation.
The brain does all the interpreting.

Why could it not be the case that, throughout history, the various ways organisms collect EM radiation changed - evolved? We know today that various creatures are sensitive to various ranges of EM radiation. Insects "see" in very different wavelengths than we do.
Why not our predecessors?

(Edited by mobrul on 12-02-2004 23:41)

quote:

---

You can't see with just a pupil for instance.

---

Before your question can be answered (though Mobrul did a decent job of it already), you must explain:

Are you thinking along the lines that we would have 'evolved' the various parts seperately from each other? For instance, suggesting that evolutionary theory would mean that we had a 'pupil' (which in and of itself is awful silly, since a pupil is just a hole....) and then at some later stage developed a lens, etc...?

I may be off mark here, but it seems to me that you trying to suggest such a thing as a means of showing some sort of flaw in evolution.

This, I feel, is perfect for the discussion at this point. The Blind Watchmaker
In which Richard Dawkins explains how the eye, in all its complexity, has evolved through natural selection. Is this the kind of thing you alluded to Gideon?

:::tao::: ::cell::

quote:

---

Gideon said:

I have a question for you evolution gurus:

How did the human eye form in evolution?
-Amino acids, protozoa, whatever don't have eyes and
-When any part of the human eye is not there it is nonfunctional. You
need the entire eye for it to work properly. You can't see with just a
pupil for instance.

---

As well as Tao's excellent suggestion I also recommend Dawkins' "Climbing Mount Improbable" which has a whole chapter on the evolution of the eye and lot sof other interesting stuff.

As I'm sure you wouldn't accept criticism of Christinaity from someone who wasn't familiar with the Bible it would be handy if those putting forward such questions would do us the same favour and do some reading around on the issue before asking them (and reading from actual "evolutionist" books and sites rather than Creationist ones).

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org | Justice for Pat Richard | FAQs: Emperor | Site Reviews | Reception Room

(Edited by Emperor on 12-03-2004 04:33)

One must also be aware, that different versions of the eye have devoleoped, independently of one another. This suggests, that there are processes that supports the developement of organs that can detect certain electromagnetic wavelengths, that they are beneficial to organisms that do so.

More is the question - why would God "create" different types of eyes? Why not go with the "best" one? Or combine the best attributes of the two into one superior model, and use that instead? The fact that we do not have "perfect" senses, seems odd to me - God is surely capable of creating perfect senses in creatures, right? Why purposely create flawed creatures? Why purposely create different versions of the same thing?

And there are examples of creatures with "eyespots", that are primitive versions of eyes, actually just light-sensitive cells of the skin, that have taken on a special function. It would seem, that being able to "detect" light, gives such organisms an advantage over others that cannot.

Really, of all the things to ask about, the eye? I would think one would be tempted to ask about intelligence...

I mean, if I was before god and I only had one question, I certainly wouldn't ask him why he/she/it created the eye!