In the Beginning...

[Sommerswerd]

And in what other ways our trusted figures are fallible (and how likely it is we're wrong too). I'm still not sure how I'll handle Christmas type stuff if I ever have kids, but I'll probably refuse to tell them either the truth or the lie, put the presents there all the same, and tell them that it's up to them to figure out the correct belief and why they believe it. That would be a fun exercise.

The point, or at least the best part from my perspective, is that you as a parent can enjoy watching your children's minds grow and their reasoning powers develop, to the point where they reach milestones... like being able to reject BS when they hear it... including appealing BS.

The difference, is that on the Santa Claus question, parents are almost universally gratified on some level to see their children get to the point where they can reason out for themselves that its make believe, but still wholesome good fun... But on the Bible/religion thing, ... for many people, they can't allow their children to reason it out, and in fact try to prevent them from doing so, or even shame or guilt-trip them for it.

 

[Arakhor]

I'm asking people who believe the Bible to explain how time (and the universe) began with creation when Heaven and Earth appear in the story after the 1st day. I wasn't asking non-believers...

A) No creationists (apparently) are posting in this thread
B) They've been justifying the Bible for a lot longer than you have

What makes you think you have any chance of succeeding?

 

[Berzerker]

I didn't post the OP knowing if creationists would respond, but Tim is more or less in the ballpark - and he's about the only one discussing the subject with me.

Why do you care if I succeed or not? I changed my mind after someone offered me a different interpretation of Genesis, why cant others change their minds?

 

[Arakhor]

I don't care, but the sorts of people who believe that Genesis is literal truth are unlikely to have their faith shaken by your threads.

 

[Lexicus]

I don't think that coming up with a logic-stretching interpretation of Genesis that squares it with what is known in science about the origins of the Earth is any great achievement.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I'm asking people who believe the Bible to explain how time (and the universe) began with creation when Heaven and Earth appear in the story after the 1st day. I wasn't asking non-believers...

Since you tend to get belligerent when people post things you don't like in your threads and you have an aversion to atheists and anyone who disagrees with you, may I suggest that you make an invitation-only social group and only invite the people who you want to talk to?

what doesn't make any sense?

Pretty much everything you've posted in this thread makes no sense.

 

[Berzerker]

Obviously you do care or you wouldn't be here asking me... I'm trying to get responses from people who believe Genesis claims God created the universe in the beginning. If they have a good argument they might change my mind. If they dont, maybe they'll consider my argument.

 

[Arakhor]

I don't think that coming up with a logic-stretching interpretation of Genesis that squares it with what is known in science about the origins of the Earth is any great achievement.

But getting people to believe in their millions, because otherwise they're not True Christians (or whatever reason), is impressive. The sheer demographics of YEC has long intrigued me.

I'm trying to get responses from people who believe Genesis claims God created the universe in the beginning.

Presumably you mean people who believe that since Genesis claims it, therefore it's true.

 

[Kyriakos]

(Afaik, not read much on this) In some 1rst-2nd AD gnostic philosophy/theology, the material world was created by a sort of lower-god (something maybe analogous to satan).

Eg in the gnosticism of Basileides iirc that lower-god was termed The Demiurge, from some platonic notion. Demiurge literally means 'public worker' (demos + ergon). Juxtaposed to the creator of immaterial things, which were higher in such theologies, and argued to be the work of an over-god.

I recall a sentence in Kafka's notebooks: "What we call 'material' is just the evil part of the immaterial"

 

[Berzerker]

I don't think that coming up with a logic-stretching interpretation of Genesis that squares it with what is known in science about the origins of the Earth is any great achievement.

How has the logic been stretched? Most of the world's creation myths (including Genesis) claim the world was covered by water before the dry land and life appeared. If that squares with the science then isn't the "achievement" theirs?

Since you tend to get belligerent when people post things you don't like in your threads and you have an aversion to atheists and anyone who disagrees with you, may I suggest that you make an invitation-only social group and only invite the people who you want to talk to?

No thanks, talk away... But reminding you what the OP is about is not being belligerent. And the rest of that is not true, I've had lengthy, polite debates with all sorts of people who disagree with me. Any aversion I have is to rude people and I notice atheists tend to get belligerent when others dont agree with them. You're in the habit of insulting people and you're lecturing me about civility?

What is the atheist supposed to say? They dont believe Genesis. The OP is asking people who do believe to explain why "in the beginning" doesn't start happening until the 2nd and 3rd days. The atheist doesn't believe any of that happened... Yeah, we know.

Pretty much everything you've posted in this thread makes no sense.

Then change the channel

You argued magma was proof water couldn't have covered the world

Does that make sense?

 

[Berzerker]

(Afaik, not read much on this) In some 1rst-2nd AD gnostic philosophy/theology, the material world was created by a sort of lower-god (something maybe analogous to satan).

Eg in the gnosticism of Basileides iirc that lower-god was termed The Demiurge, from some platonic notion. Demiurge literally means 'public worker' (demos + ergon). Juxtaposed to the creator of immaterial things, which were higher in such theologies, and argued to be the work of an over-god.

I recall a sentence in Kafka's notebooks: "What we call 'material' is just the evil part of the immaterial"

didn't one of the gnostic gospels have Jesus saying the creator of this world was not to be worshiped because it was something other than God.

maybe thats why many native american myths have a God and a companion creator, like the diver animal that retrieves mud from below the primordial waters to form the land

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I didn't post the OP knowing if creationists would respond, but Tim is more or less in the ballpark - and he's about the only one discussing the subject with me.

Why do you care if I succeed or not? I changed my mind after someone offered me a different interpretation of Genesis, why cant others change their minds?

Some of us will, if given evidence to distinguish one theory from another.

If the purpose of the thread is to try to reason out the beginning, the OP questions are wrong questions.

 

[Berzerker]

what day(s) were Heaven and Earth created?

where is the universe while Heaven and Earth are being created?

those were my questions

why are they wrong?

 

[Arakhor]

They're essentially 'gotcha' questions of course.

 

[Berzerker]

They're questions designed to show "In the beginning" refers to events that happened on the 2nd and 3rd days and therefore could not be talking about the universe or the beginning of time

 

[Lexicus]

But getting people to believe in their millions, because otherwise they're not True Christians (or whatever reason), is impressive. The sheer demographics of YEC has long intrigued me.

I don't think it's the rationalizations that cause people to embrace YEC. Rather, people first embrace YEC for other reasons, the rationalizations come later.

How has the logic been stretched? Most of the world's creation myths (including Genesis) claim the world was covered by water before the dry land and life appeared. If that squares with the science then isn't the "achievement" theirs?

No, because the Earth was initially dry, for the simple reason that it was too hot for liquid water to sit on the surface.

 

[Sommerswerd]

How has the logic been stretched? Most of the world's creation myths (including Genesis) claim the world was covered by water before the dry land and life appeared. If that squares with the science then isn't the "achievement" theirs?

But it doesn't square with science as I understand it... The earth was nothing but dry land at the outset and was a volcanic fiery mess. Water came later... and it certainly didn't cover the whole world.

You argued magma was proof water couldn't have covered the world

Does that make sense?

See my above comment. I imagine she was talking about when the earth looked like this (and thus couldn't have been covered with water.

Again, I get what you are trying to do, I just don't think your interpretation is that good or compelling, and needs revision.

 

[onejayhawk]

How the planet could go from roughly formed to oxygen and water is a mystery. The mechanics of atmospheric formation are basically not understood at all. Theories abound. None hold water.

Yes, that was a terrible pun. sue me.

j

 

[timtofly]

It does not work, because the Bible will never square with evolution and the earth not being as old as the universe. I am not sure how those who lived in ancient times could claim that God was the sole source of everything, while the skeptics around them declared there was no God, and especially not one powerful enough to do so.

What people refuse to accept is that God cannot form matter and give it a certain age. God cannot take dust and form a completely whole human. Nor can he turn water into wine in an instant. Humans want to make up their own gods, or no God at all.

 

[Kyriakos]

If one goes by Hesiods 'Theogonia' (ie 'birth of gods'), in the beginning there was Chaos and Erebos (utter darkness), and then the Night. First local god was the earth itself (Gaia) (and the Sky, iirc, Ouranos). After some turns there are the titans and their order. Then the titanomachia happens. The rest is -gods in- history

didn't one of the gnostic gospels have Jesus saying the creator of this world was not to be worshiped because it was something other than God.

maybe thats why many native american myths have a God and a companion creator, like the diver animal that retrieves mud from below the primordial waters to form the land

Nice, 'diver animal'

Iirc the gnostic theologies speak of an animal-god, often not actually conscious. Sometimes it has a conscious lesser part, sent as an agent on earth. It also is argued to be insane.

In Aztec mythology the continents of the earth were carved out of a massive crocodile-like creature, killed by Tezcatlipoca (who lost his leg in the process, using it as bait). Tezcatlipoca was an alien god, though, and kept fighting other alien gods, needing human sacrifice to strengthen him or else the even more monstrous alien other gods would come here