In the Beginning...

[Arakhor]

If #1218 is the sum of the evidence, then yes, absolutely. I presume that you do in fact have more compelling arguments though?

 

[Senethro]

So you'll dismiss anything in Genesis supported by the scientific evidence as coincidence and tell us the scientific evidence doesn't support Genesis?

Well, yah, why not? What have the poorly recorded and translated written accounts of the oral traditions of a bunch of bronze age proto-jews got to do with anything?

 

[timtofly]

Why would Jesus have been in on any deception? He was very specifically mortal, without a scholarly education and he was killed a few short years into his ministry. If you accept the Resurrection narrative, he then ascended to heaven shortly thereafter.

This also assumes that there was a deliberate attempt to deceive anyone. We know that the order and composition of the Bible was debated centuries after the events in the NT (let alone the OT), which when you consider the distance in time and space and the politics therein, suggesting that somehow the exact texts that God allegedly passed onto Moses remained untrammelled at this point would be wildly optimistic, to say the least.

Origen of Alexandria lived from 185 to 255 barely making 2 centuries. I do not get this claim on passage of time as causing the original message to be lost. Even the KJV has been around for over 400 years. There are people who have claimed it is wrong and does not go along with modern sentiment. Why should it? It was translated 400 years ago from documents handed down over the last 1500 years. It probably did not fit the ideals of people 400 years ago either.

It is not even that the Bible is wrong to 1st century standards. When it comes to philosophy and spiritual concepts, humans have been wrestling the same concepts for 4000 years. Even first century standards are not that contrary to modern ones. The issue is that humans will always be skeptical of what the Bible says, because the ones who wrote and edited the Bible were arguing the same concepts. That is one of the reasons the NT was even written. Humans were telling their version of the story, and every attempt seems to have failed to change what was written. How can we be sure that it was the truth that was passed on an not a lie. Truth does not have to be defended, even if it makes us mad. Lies have to be figured out, and changed in order to keep the lie going. Humans know what the truth is, even if they do not agree with it. Humans know what a lie is, even if it gives them a false sense of confidence. I am talking about those who know the difference, not those who have been lied to by those who do know what the truth is.

I have read what Muhammad claimed. I have read what Mary Baker Eddy claimed. I have read what Joseph Smith and Brigham Young have claimed. I have read what Origen thought. Origen made some claims that I do not agree with, but I do not question his ability to read, and his scholarly ability to think and reason things out. Nor do I think any of the others were any less or more qualified. I am not even claiming that the Bible is true or a lie. For the most part, I am trying to figure out why others here think that it is a lie. People have been arguing that the Bible is wrong and incomplete for centuries.

 

[Berzerker]

If #1218 is the sum of the evidence, then yes, absolutely. I presume that you do in fact have more compelling arguments though?

It was a brief summary of a few bible verses, the sum is immense and increasing as more science comes in. But you could have saved us both time by just admitting you didn't care if there was scientific evidence in support of Genesis. And you accuse me of sophistry and arguing in bad faith?

Well, yah, why not?

Because it aint true

What have the poorly recorded and translated written accounts of the oral traditions of a bunch of bronze age proto-jews got to do with anything?

Their story is shared by peoples all around the world... and the science agrees with that common theme - a dark water covered world preceded dry land and life.

 

[Senethro]

Seriously though, so what?

 

[Berzerker]

now you're serious?

 

[Senethro]

Early on I tried to ask the significance of such knowledge and you deflected.

I still don't get the point of this religious belief you have that you don't share with anyone.

So what use is this one man attempt to cherry pick myths?

 

[Berzerker]

The ramifications for both science and religion are enormous, I wouldn't have to explain that to a serious person

 

[Senethro]

What ramifications for science?

One issue I see is that you deliberately refuse to explain how ancient cultures gained a high degree of understanding without scientific instruments. Then you give this apparent knowledge an inappropriate high degree of trust.

But what is the utility? Or, less respectfully, so what?

You'll have harder audiences than me if this is real so you might as well put the practice in.

 

[Agent327]

The ramifications for both science and religion are enormous, I wouldn't have to explain that to a serious person

The ramifications of what exactly?

So you'll dismiss anything in Genesis supported by the scientific evidence as coincidence and tell us the scientific evidence doesn't support Genesis?

Actually, I wouldn't really know what in Genesis is supported by science. It gets most creation phenomena simply wrong, or in the wrong order. The real issue is that there's no reason to suspect anything in Genesis would be supported by science. Not just Genesis, but the Bible as a whole shows a remarkable absence of interest for things we would term science.

What is basic HS geology?

The fact that our Earth is spinning, and why, is basic high school geology.

Darkness is relative, sunlight is weaker further from the sun and the sun was weaker back then.

Possibly. But Genesis clearly says there were no lights yet, ergo also no sun. It doesn't say there was less light. So your conclusion simply doesn't follow.

They described those 11 orbs in their epic of creation and provided us a picture

Then these orbs don't equate the planets. Once again, we don't have 11 planets.

How do you know?

By the simple fact that there is zero evidence of any worldwide flood ever.

Cosmic events signaled his birth and cosmic events foretell his return.

That's rather incorrect on both counts. The comet associated with Jesus' birth only appears in the NT. (So the rest of the world missed it?) And I don't quite see Christ returning for final judgment day as a cosmic event - apart from the fact that we are in the cosmos it would have zero cosmic consequence.

"Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken" - Math 24:29

Sp the coming of Christ coincides with our sun dying? We should hope to be around that long. Most species typically only last a number of millions of years.

“There will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and on the earth dismay among nations, in perplexity at the roaring of the sea and the waves, 26men fainting from fear and the expectation of the things which are coming upon the world; for the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 27“Then they will see THE SON OF MAN COMING IN A CLOUD with power and great glory. - Luke 21:25

I doubt the death of our sun has any further cosmic consequence - if there are we'll no longer be here to witness, so that's a rather pointless prediction.

I'm not the one who cant make sense of what he said, that would be you. And I already explained what it means.

Your explanation, sadly, makes no sense. I understand what it means when doctrine dictates that 3 persons are one, but I don't follow how 50 equals 7. Kindly try and explain.

But it isn't an example

Well, actually, it rather is. Your denying doesn't alter that.

He said VA 243 was probably a constellation... Does that refer to the terrestrial scene below? Who invented this rule that celestial imagery must refer to what is discussed on a seal?

There's no such rule. Again, that wasn't the point. I gather you see the illustration on seals as evidence of some kind. But if the illustration represents 7 planets, why then are there other references to 11 planets (orbs)? Either the one is incorrect, or the other.

 

[Berzerker]

What ramifications for science?

I wouldn't have to explain that to a serious person

Think about it yourself a while and pretend you were serious

One issue I see is that you deliberately refuse to explain how ancient cultures gained a high degree of understanding without scientific instruments.

I've answered that already several times

Then you give this apparent knowledge an inappropriate high degree of trust.

I give the science a high degree of trust

But what is the utility? Or, less respectfully, so what?

You just asked that and I told you

You'll have harder audiences than me if this is real so you might as well put the practice in.

I'm happy to discuss the matter with serious people, you aint one of them.

 

[Leoreth]

I wouldn't have to explain that to a serious person

So nothing of substance, we all got it.

 

[Berzerker]

The ramifications of what exactly?

Lets see, the Earth formed at the asteroid belt following a collision with another planet leading to life on both. No ramifications for science? We've spent decades chasing theories that are turning out to be wrong.

Actually, I wouldn't really know what in Genesis is supported by science. It gets most creation phenomena simply wrong, or in the wrong order. The real issue is that there's no reason to suspect anything in Genesis would be supported by science.

You dont know what in Genesis is supported by the science but there's no reason to suspect anything in Genesis would be supported by the science?

The fact that our Earth is spinning, and why, is basic high school geology.

I took geology in college, the teacher didn't spend any time talking about the possible rotation of the world 4.5 bya. If you and everyone else but me knows it was spinning, good for you. I dont claim to know...

But Genesis clearly says there were no lights yet, ergo also no sun. It doesn't say there was less light. So your conclusion simply doesn't follow.

Genesis doesn't say there were no lights... How do you think the world had night and day? God's first act of creation was "Light".

Then these orbs don't equate the planets. Once again, we don't have 11 planets.

The 11 orbs includes the Moon. But "we" didn't write the Enuma Elish... The people who did described the sun and 8 planets followed by the addition of Marduk, Pluto and the Moon.

By the simple fact that there is zero evidence of any worldwide flood ever.

You said there was no flood, now you're changing that to no worldwide flood. There was a flood, sea levels rose several hundred feet following the ice age. Arguing there was no flood is not the same as claiming details about that flood were wrong.

That's rather incorrect on both counts. The comet associated with Jesus' birth only appears in the NT. (So the rest of the world missed it?) And I don't quite see Christ returning for final judgment day as a cosmic event - apart from the fact that we are in the cosmos it would have zero cosmic consequence.

There was no cosmic event signaling the birth of Jesus because the rest of the world didn't see a comet? How do you know it was a comet or that it was missed by everyone else? I just quoted the Bible's prophecies of his return and it describes cosmic events.

Sp the coming of Christ coincides with our sun dying? We should hope to be around that long. Most species typically only last a number of millions of years.

It didn't say the sun would die

I doubt the death of our sun has any further cosmic consequence - if there are we'll no longer be here to witness, so that's a rather pointless prediction.

The sun dying would have no other cosmic consequences?

Your explanation, sadly, makes no sense. I understand what it means when doctrine dictates that 3 persons are one, but I don't follow how 50 equals 7. Kindly try and explain.

Yeah, so sad... I already explained it, The rank of Enlil was 50 and he was Lord of the Earth. The celestial 7 is 50 refers to the Earth as his domain.

Well, actually, it rather is. Your denying doesn't alter that.

But you claiming it was an example makes it one? He said the text on VA 243 was unrelated to the celestial imagery, therefore it wasn't celestial imagery. But he also thinks VA 243 showed a constellation. Does the text relate to a constellation? The panel at Nine Mile Canyon had no text, how is that an example of a cylinder seal with text?

There's no such rule. Again, that wasn't the point. I gather you see the illustration on seals as evidence of some kind. But if the illustration represents 7 planets, why then are there other references to 11 planets (orbs)? Either the one is incorrect, or the other.

Who said the seal represents 7 planets?

 

[Berzerker]

So nothing of substance, we all got it.

good description of your contribution to the thread...and his...

 

[Arakhor]

It was a brief summary of a few bible verses, the sum is immense and increasing as more science comes in. But you could have saved us both time by just admitting you didn't care if there was scientific evidence in support of Genesis. And you accuse me of sophistry and arguing in bad faith?

And now you are deliberately misinterpreting what I wrote, presumably because it suits you to do so. Playing the wounded martyr is much easier when you have actually been wounded, you know. Presenting five instances where the Genesis story can be interpreted to match the science (if you're feeling generous) is hardly going to set the world alike after all.

 

[Berzerker]

And now you are deliberately misinterpreting what I wrote, presumably because it suits you to do so.

Another unsupported accusation of deceit?

Playing the wounded martyr is much easier when you have actually been wounded, you know. Presenting five instances where the Genesis story can be interpreted to match the science (if you're feeling generous) is hardly going to set the world alike after all.

So now there's 5 instances of the science supporting Genesis?

Thats funny, you complain about how you're the victim of my dishonesty and then call me the martyr

 

[Leoreth]

good description of your contribution to the thread...and his...

Sure, there is nothing of value in this thread so there is nothing to contribute to. You're still dodging your obligation to give a simple reason why anything here is remotely relevant. But as I said, we all know why.

No idea why you're also spitting in Arakhor's face here though, for some reason he's still patient enough to waste his time and interact with you in good faith.

 

[Senethro]

You're a true miser of knowledge to keep this all to yourself, berzerker.

 

[El_Machinae]

How do the stars fall from the Heavens? That makes no sense. They'll shrinking into tiny fractions of their current size, and start racing towards Earth beginning at different timepoints, so that they can arrive mostly concurrently and trickle down?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

good description of your contribution to the thread...and his...

I don't think anyone even knows how to contribute to this thread. What is it even about? Are you asking questions or just lecturing? Is there something you're seeking that anyone here can help you find?