Mageth

Genesis 1:4: “He divided the light from the darkness.”

You know, it could also be read to implicitly mean that god pulls apart his Oreos and eats the creamy insides first.

Mageth

You can call me Al or you can call me Albert, just don’t call me names. I’ve more of a claim to being dated by that because that comedian’s name was “Al” and so is mine.

Actually the comedian's name was Ray, Raymond J. Johnston. Yous can call me Ray, or yous can call me J, yous don't have to call me Johnston!

I think you're thinking about the Paul Simon song...

I guess I'm really dating myself.

K

Albert:

If you are allowing "light" to mean energy and "darkness" to mean matter, then it's certainly possible to interpret Pan Gu's egg to be singularity that hatched our universe.

S.D.Jim

Albert Cipriani:

I would like to respond to the general thrust of several of Albert Cipriani’s posts that appear to claim superior naturalistic knowledge of the writers of Genesis 1. Sir, do you claim like superior knowledge in the story in Genesis 2? Is Genesis 2 also ancient wisdom imparted by God and on a par with modern science?

Using my copy of the New International Version of the bible I would like to make some observations.
-----------------------------------------------
God “... made the earth and the heavens...” (the first Creation Event).
As noted by others in comments on Genesis 1, there is no clear definition of
earth or of heaven, or heavens, as in my version, and thus the terms are wide
open to interpretation.
-------------------------------------------------
“...streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground.” (probably the second creation event, though it could be part of the first).
That’s an awful lot of water from springs to account for all the seas, rivers, lakes
etc., and doesn’t agree with the naturalist explanation of the first water forming
as rain.
---------------------------------------------------
God “...formed the man from the dust of the ground...” (The third creation event).
This is a separate creation and has no connection with any other ‘kinds’ of
animals. Obviously this does not agree with evolution which is the naturalist’s
explanation.
-------------------------------------------------
God “... had planted a garden in the east in Eden and there he put the man...” (this seems to imply another creation event, since the earth had to exist in order to plant a garden). But what did this garden consist of?
--------------------------------------------------
God “...made all kinds of trees to grow out of the ground...”, including the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
No other ‘kind’ of vegetation is mentioned, but trees are not the first ‘kind’ of
vegetation to appear in the natural record.
-------------------------------------------------
“A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters...” (possibly another creation event since rivers hadn’t been mentioned before, but apparently it was needed to water the trees in the garden).
But why was this river needed to water the garden and form the headwaters of
the four named rivers when he had already created springs to water the whole
surface of the earth?
--------------------------------------------------
God said “It is not good for the man to be alone, I will make a helper for him.” So God “formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air.” (this is the second to the last creation event).
No mention is made of the dwellers of the waters, or of insects, or any other
life forms distinguishable from beasts of the fields or birds of the air. How about
beasts of the forests, or the mountains, or the swamps, or the deserts etc. or
of flying beasts or beasts that swim. This creation seems a bit too limited to account
for all the ‘kinds’ of animal life in nature, and does not conform with the natural
explanation that life formed in the seas first and then spread to the land.
-------------------------------------------------
“But for Adam no suitable helper was found.”
This has long seemed to me to be an incomprehensible statement. Was this God
so inept in the natural sciences that he was unaware that the best helper and
companion for any male would be a female of his own species? Apparently it
was only after creating all other living ‘kinds’ that God became aware that none
of them was right for Adam. On the other hand naturalists are aware that sexual
procreation requires at least two sexes. There can be no man without a woman.
--------------------------------------------------
(Now we come to the last creation event) “...God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man.”
Apparently this in the only time in natural history when a human man gave birth
to a woman. An interesting theological position but hardly in line with naturalism.
--------------------------------------------------
So Albert Cipriani could you please inform us how this account of Genesis agrees with nature.

thank you: Jim

Please overlook the ragged indentation appearance of the above, I still have not mastered word document creation and cutting and pasting.

Jobar

Hello S.D.Jim, and welcome to Internet Infidels. If you want, there are some good links available in our Welcome forum on using the vB software which II uses.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now. Albert Cipriani. I have tried to gently point out to you that your posts need to be less abrasive, and that you should try to avoid personal insults. On this thread alone I find these statements:

Good Luck Smart Guy

I just wouldn’t call on you, not for a rational discourse anyway… maybe for a course in mockery, maybe for arsenic in the course of my meal if I had to put up with your brand of dinner talk.

. It was written for you Poindexter types. People that want evidence of something otherworldly going on before you’ll deign to get going to church.

But I grow weary of flailing away at your gnats. ALL your gnats were pre-swatted in my prior post. Go there if you wish to inspect the squashed remains of your objections.

You people can't be as dull as you are making yourselves out to be. I know you are smarter than this.

Point is, Poindexters are impossible to please.

The best refutation of you, K, is to let you have your say.

Since gentleness seems ineffective with you, let's take off the velvet gloves here.

PERSONAL INSULTS LIKE THESE WILL NOT BE TOLERATED!

Do I make myself very, very clear???

This constitutes formal warning from a moderator, Albert. You may denigrate ideas but you may NOT denigrate people.

If you continue to do this, there will be consequences up to and including loss of your posting privileges on II.

Capice?

Albert Cipriani

Mageth,
Thanks for the correction: Raymond J. Johnston. All trys to member dat.

As for God pulling His Oreos apart, the God that Primal has come to not know and to loath wouldn’t do that; He’d be far too busy pulling apart the wings from flies.

Primal said:
Yeah, Primal’s God is definitely no Oreo cookie God. Which leads me to believe that mostly what atheists disbelieve in is some sort of caricature even us theist disbelieve in. – Cheers, Albert

7thangel

SecularFuture said: You believe your bible was inspired by a God, yes? Why? In a modern world that offers no evidence for the supernatural, how can you believe in a book that is without rational proof for its claims?

Miracles still happens in these modern times. But they are intended to be unnoticed. The Bible says, “not by might nor by power, but my spirit.” That speaks of these last days, implying that we will come to know God not directly by miracles. Today, as was prophesied, knowledge had increased. And as we go further to the zenith of knowledge, we were coming to understand more clearly that man is nothing but a mere dust. The discoveries of science are actually pushing us to justify God. It is just the way how we look at it. I quoted Romans 1:19-20 not to take the words itself but of the things that we have been coming to in our discoveries of the creation. Today, we are being led to know God through the creation, instead of the miracles.

SecularFuture said: Why do some feel that quoting from their religious book will sway the mind of a secularist?

I do not preach myself that is the very point. Quoting from the bible will lead us to the one I preach. I am also disgusted of the people who quote the bible inappropriately.

SecularFuture said: If there is no evidence for the supernatural, all of the supernatural claims from your bible are without rational merits.

In the past, miracles are mostly used to persuade people of God’s existence. But as I have told you, today we are being persuaded through our knowledge of the creation itself. But as some people did not believe the miracles, some people will not also be convinced by what is being known from the creation.

SecularFuture said: Have you ever considered the possibility that creative writers, long ago, could have easily fabricated your entire bible from scratch? Have you ever considered the possibility that Jesus Christ, Mary, Adam, and Eve could all be fictional characters in a beautifully written story? Think about it. It would not have been that hard for a group of people to do. And - why would someone want to fabricate a religion? - To gain control, to set a standard, and to put more power into a specific church(es). Have you ever considered this? Take a moment to seriously think about it.

It is easy to make such imaginations, or presumptions, if you will. But stories in the bible are actually being made evidences, it just depend on how we look at them. Paul quoted the story of Jacob and Esau, and also of Abraham about what salvation is really all about. I guess, we should treat the same way about the story of Christ.

As regard to gaining control, one thing for sure, there are liars out there. And they will tell you the most irrational and unbelievable words just to justify themselves.

SecularFuture said: In a natural world, why should the supernatural exist? Because some of us want it to?

On the contrary, we existed because there is God. And being given the gift of knowledge of good and evil, we are being led to understand of our being to have peace.

SecularFuture said: No. I’ve already looked for God. If you would like to know more about my search, please visit this link:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread....&threadid=44779
Maybe you can help me.

Thanks for responding. I will read your post and put more thought to it before posting my response.

God Bless

S.D.Jim

7thangel said;

On the contrary, we existed because there is God. And being given the gift of knowledge of good and evil, we are being led to understand of our being to have peace.
--------------------------------------------------

I really do not understand what you are saying here. However, I think I should point out that in Genesis 3 where the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is mentioned, We weren't given this gift. Eve stole the fruit and Adam ate it thus gaining the knowledge God had forbidden to them.

Albert Cipriani

[Complaint removed.]

d

Sue Sponte

Are we now reading the bible as consistent with the big bang theory? The bang theory supposes a process, which as I read the text in Genesis, is distinctly NOT what the bible claims. The bible does not state that God created a series of events which ultimately culminated in the creation of the earth, which then went through several versions of life for many millions of years, at which time God awoke from his nap and then created man.

Would you concede this is, perhaps, slightly revisionist?

This is a common form of argument I see from theists, one which I find most unconvincing. When challenged on particulars, the default reaction appears to be to simply explain that it cannot be perceived or explained which, in my humble view, is no explanation at all.