Neanderthal walked the earth before us. Totally unrelated species of man. But human being nonetheless. No genetic relation to Cro-Magnon, yet human just the same. Could this be the people who took in 'Cain'? Hard questions. These people existed with the mammoth. We came a little later. What happened to these people? God gave a strange command to those first created. He said to "Go forth and multiply and to REplenish the earth." Replenish means exactly that. It had to have had something there in the first place, and then not, to be able to replenish it. The word replenish occurs in every single version of the bible I have read. I know. I've checked.
Oxford dictionary definition- Replenish: fill up again after some has been used.
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20 ... rthal.html
In the beginning....
In the beginning....
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
In the beginning....
The only problem I see with the use of "replenish" is that it is being taken literally and is at the same time part of an ancient myth. There never were two original folks called Adam and Eve though I've met both Adams and Eves during my lifetime they were not that old.
Shalom
Ted :-6
Shalom
Ted :-6
In the beginning....
The flood is an interesting aspect of the Bible that has the ark, allegedly, on a moutain top in Turkey. Archaeologically speaking there is no trace of this innundation througout the world. There is the flood that filled the Meditteanean in Gilgamesh. There are folkloric evidences of the floods having occurred in other parts of the world but it could have been the melting polar icecaps. The flood as it happened around the times tht genesis is supposed to record as being worldwide are, apparently, regional. The cataclysmic effects of the flood could be from the creation of the seas in that area.
There is archaeological proof of life in that region at the time is recorded. I am not trying to say anything other than there was no internet in the day and it is the recordings of a primitive man passing down the event to posterity.
There is archaeological proof of life in that region at the time is recorded. I am not trying to say anything other than there was no internet in the day and it is the recordings of a primitive man passing down the event to posterity.
In the beginning....
It is quite possible that the story of Noah and the flood is a legend that had its beginning in a local flood. The Tigris used to flood as does the Nile on an annual basis.
Shalom
Ted :-6
Shalom
Ted :-6
In the beginning....
I think the Earth is replenishing itself every day and each day is a new beginning.
Unfortunately :-6 I don't think there is an end. (Nor do I really think there was a "beginning" per se)
Unfortunately :-6 I don't think there is an end. (Nor do I really think there was a "beginning" per se)
In the beginning....
koan wrote: I think the Earth is replenishing itself every day and each day is a new beginning.
Unfortunately :-6 I don't think there is an end. (Nor do I really think there was a "beginning" per se)
A new beginning and a new ending. This is where geology comes into play. Replenishing through life and death. The earth is an organism. It is growing. When it dies or how it dies is the question?
Unfortunately :-6 I don't think there is an end. (Nor do I really think there was a "beginning" per se)
A new beginning and a new ending. This is where geology comes into play. Replenishing through life and death. The earth is an organism. It is growing. When it dies or how it dies is the question?
In the beginning....
StelZ wrote: didnt the great flood wipe everyone out ? i assume then that they needed to replenish not just the humans but all the other living things..? 
The flood, in comparison to neanderthal, is relatively recent. According to genesis, there were giants in those days as well. (I love the bible stories!) :-6
Not to mention unicorns and great behemoths!
But nowhere, does it directly mention 'other' humans. But yet we're digging them up all the time. My point, I guess, was that another race of human walked this planet before our kind did. Where do they fit in with our story? By believing in one creator, I'm assuming He created them too. I dont think Neanderthal went out with the flood, but were gone long before that event. My opinions are pure conjecture and 'what if's', but I'm going to try and find some scientific basis for this. Be back soon! :-6
The flood, in comparison to neanderthal, is relatively recent. According to genesis, there were giants in those days as well. (I love the bible stories!) :-6
Not to mention unicorns and great behemoths!
But nowhere, does it directly mention 'other' humans. But yet we're digging them up all the time. My point, I guess, was that another race of human walked this planet before our kind did. Where do they fit in with our story? By believing in one creator, I'm assuming He created them too. I dont think Neanderthal went out with the flood, but were gone long before that event. My opinions are pure conjecture and 'what if's', but I'm going to try and find some scientific basis for this. Be back soon! :-6
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
In the beginning....
Ted wrote: The only problem I see with the use of "replenish" is that it is being taken literally and is at the same time part of an ancient myth. There never were two original folks called Adam and Eve though I've met both Adams and Eves during my lifetime they were not that old.
Shalom
Ted :-6
How do you know that there was no 'Adam' or 'Eve'?
Science has already traced back mitochondrial dna to one woman.
I dont know about you, but I didnt come swinging down from a tree. I may like banannas, but I'm no monkey. :-6
Shalom
Ted :-6
How do you know that there was no 'Adam' or 'Eve'?
Science has already traced back mitochondrial dna to one woman.
I dont know about you, but I didnt come swinging down from a tree. I may like banannas, but I'm no monkey. :-6
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
In the beginning....
Raven :-6
I am completely confident that the story of Adam and Eve is pure myth. In fact it was borrowed from other tribes of the day.
As to swinging down out of the trees, not me. I don't like heights. In fact fell from my roof once and broke my neck in to places. However, I'm willing to bet that I'm a monkey's uncle somewhere along the line. LOL
Shalom
Ted
:-6
I am completely confident that the story of Adam and Eve is pure myth. In fact it was borrowed from other tribes of the day.
As to swinging down out of the trees, not me. I don't like heights. In fact fell from my roof once and broke my neck in to places. However, I'm willing to bet that I'm a monkey's uncle somewhere along the line. LOL
Shalom
Ted
:-6
In the beginning....
StelZ wrote: lol @ Raven - your a bird aint ya?!
You Brits never get it straight, do yuh?
It's chick. Chick! What don't you understand about chick? A bird is a chick!
You Brits never get it straight, do yuh?
It's chick. Chick! What don't you understand about chick? A bird is a chick!
-
capt_buzzard
- Posts: 5557
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm
In the beginning....
StelZ wrote: lol @ Raven - your a bird aint ya?!Love it:D
In the beginning....
StelZ wrote: I think chick's a bit old fashioned now.. 
That would mean that bird is too. Why didn't you give us the newest word to make it into the lexicon?
That would mean that bird is too. Why didn't you give us the newest word to make it into the lexicon?
In the beginning....
Ted wrote: Raven :-6
I am completely confident that the story of Adam and Eve is pure myth. In fact it was borrowed from other tribes of the day.
As to swinging down out of the trees, not me. I don't like heights. In fact fell from my roof once and broke my neck in to places. However, I'm willing to bet that I'm a monkey's uncle somewhere along the line. LOL
Shalom
Ted
:-6
I'm positive it's not. And I'm positive that God created the neanderthal too.
Yes, there are many creation myths and legends from every culture. I particularly like the gilgamesh ones.
I could recite to you vebatim, the native american ones. (I'm half seminole)
Those are all pure myth. I really am intrigued by the similarities between ancient egyptian 'gods' and the Living Creature before the throne of God, as described in Ezekiel and Revelation.
Personally I hope I never get to the point of being unable to marvel and gasp over Gods wonderous and mighty deeds. And God said "Let there be light!" and there WAS light, and God saw that it was good. Now THATS a God worthy of worship! And who is to say it WASNT Gods voice that caused a real BIG BANG? :-6
I am completely confident that the story of Adam and Eve is pure myth. In fact it was borrowed from other tribes of the day.
As to swinging down out of the trees, not me. I don't like heights. In fact fell from my roof once and broke my neck in to places. However, I'm willing to bet that I'm a monkey's uncle somewhere along the line. LOL
Shalom
Ted
:-6
I'm positive it's not. And I'm positive that God created the neanderthal too.
Yes, there are many creation myths and legends from every culture. I particularly like the gilgamesh ones.
I could recite to you vebatim, the native american ones. (I'm half seminole)
Those are all pure myth. I really am intrigued by the similarities between ancient egyptian 'gods' and the Living Creature before the throne of God, as described in Ezekiel and Revelation.
Personally I hope I never get to the point of being unable to marvel and gasp over Gods wonderous and mighty deeds. And God said "Let there be light!" and there WAS light, and God saw that it was good. Now THATS a God worthy of worship! And who is to say it WASNT Gods voice that caused a real BIG BANG? :-6
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
In the beginning....
Raven wrote: I'm positive it's not. And I'm positive that God created the neanderthal too.
Yes, there are many creation myths and legends from every culture. I particularly like the gilgamesh ones.
I could recite to you vebatim, the native american ones. (I'm half seminole)
Those are all pure myth. I really am intrigued by the similarities between ancient egyptian 'gods' and the Living Creature before the throne of God, as described in Ezekiel and Revelation.
Personally I hope I never get to the point of being unable to marvel and gasp over Gods wonderous and mighty deeds. And God said "Let there be light!" and there WAS light, and God saw that it was good. Now THATS a God worthy of worship! And who is to say it WASNT Gods voice that caused a real BIG BANG? :-6
I would have thought that just thinking about it would be enough to get the job done. The big bang is so infinitesimal? Yah, it's a beautiful world that He has given us to marvel at the scope of His Being. I just hope that we are up to the task of keeping it in working order?
Yes, there are many creation myths and legends from every culture. I particularly like the gilgamesh ones.
I could recite to you vebatim, the native american ones. (I'm half seminole)
Those are all pure myth. I really am intrigued by the similarities between ancient egyptian 'gods' and the Living Creature before the throne of God, as described in Ezekiel and Revelation.
Personally I hope I never get to the point of being unable to marvel and gasp over Gods wonderous and mighty deeds. And God said "Let there be light!" and there WAS light, and God saw that it was good. Now THATS a God worthy of worship! And who is to say it WASNT Gods voice that caused a real BIG BANG? :-6
I would have thought that just thinking about it would be enough to get the job done. The big bang is so infinitesimal? Yah, it's a beautiful world that He has given us to marvel at the scope of His Being. I just hope that we are up to the task of keeping it in working order?
In the beginning....
kensloft wrote: I would have thought that just thinking about it would be enough to get the job done. The big bang is so infinitesimal? Yah, it's a beautiful world that He has given us to marvel at the scope of His Being. I just hope that we are up to the task of keeping it in working order?
I would have to say no. The US pretty much took care of that in Los Alamos and project Trinity. They ensured that mans days upon our beautiful mother, were numbered. Unless we did something equally as dramatic, like getting rid of them all and forgetting we had them in the first place, then no. It's our doom. Like VX gas, (the one we WISH we could forget) man is on a one way ticket to total annihilation. As an american, I'm not proud. As a native american, I'm enraged. As a human being, I'm ashamed.
I would have to say no. The US pretty much took care of that in Los Alamos and project Trinity. They ensured that mans days upon our beautiful mother, were numbered. Unless we did something equally as dramatic, like getting rid of them all and forgetting we had them in the first place, then no. It's our doom. Like VX gas, (the one we WISH we could forget) man is on a one way ticket to total annihilation. As an american, I'm not proud. As a native american, I'm enraged. As a human being, I'm ashamed.
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
In the beginning....
StelZ wrote: RAven whats project Trinity? (Am I missing something)
YOu have some really interesting ideas, its taking me ages to think about them!
Trinity is the code name for the atomic bomb project. The initial one that produced 'fat man' and 'little boy'. The two bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It's the worst evil that we as a nation, let loose upon mankind.
http://www.zvis.com/nuclear/dimg.php3?trinity2,trinity
LOL!! I hope all that thinking wont give you a headache! (although I'll admit to one or two!) :yh_laugh
YOu have some really interesting ideas, its taking me ages to think about them!
Trinity is the code name for the atomic bomb project. The initial one that produced 'fat man' and 'little boy'. The two bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It's the worst evil that we as a nation, let loose upon mankind.
http://www.zvis.com/nuclear/dimg.php3?trinity2,trinity
LOL!! I hope all that thinking wont give you a headache! (although I'll admit to one or two!) :yh_laugh
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
In the beginning....
sagan wrote: Particularly impressive when we consider he managed to create light three days before he created the sun, moon, and stars. Was he just showing off?
Welcome back. Know one knows how long a God day is?
Welcome back. Know one knows how long a God day is?
In the beginning....
sagan wrote: Thank you for the welcome back Ken, its nice to be back even though I...am...typing...very...slowly 
The problem is not the length of time, it's the sequence. God's hypothetical 'days' may each be 1 billion years long. But it doesn't change the fact that according to the bible, we got light before any light source.
Well the brown dwarves don't give off much light. Which came first the chicken or the egg? It seems to be that kind of poser when you look at the possibility of the light sources.
The problem is not the length of time, it's the sequence. God's hypothetical 'days' may each be 1 billion years long. But it doesn't change the fact that according to the bible, we got light before any light source.
Well the brown dwarves don't give off much light. Which came first the chicken or the egg? It seems to be that kind of poser when you look at the possibility of the light sources.
In the beginning....
But if there wasn't any light how would God have seen what he was doing to create the sun, moon and stars...duh! LOL.
Glad you're back, sagan :yh_hugs
Glad you're back, sagan :yh_hugs
In the beginning....
sagan wrote: Particularly impressive when we consider he managed to create light three days before he created the sun, moon, and stars. Was he just showing off?
I sure hope so!
Maybe it was the Lord, who says "I am the light" Maybe it was the Lord, of whom it was written, "In the beginning was the Word..." I John: 1
As far as I can tell, we're the only ones who need light to see by, and we werent created yet.
I sure hope so!
Maybe it was the Lord, who says "I am the light" Maybe it was the Lord, of whom it was written, "In the beginning was the Word..." I John: 1
As far as I can tell, we're the only ones who need light to see by, and we werent created yet.
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
In the beginning....
StelZ wrote: Thanks; I agree- It's crazy that splitting the atom was one of mans 'greatest' scientific accomplishments yet also one of the most destructive.
Here's my theory: The first 'light' was presumably the 'Big Bang'.
By the third 'day' this light would have been pretty much non-existent; The rate at which the universe was expanding was slowing down by then.
The earth needed its own light/heat source, hence the sun being created.
Maybe?
As vast as the universe is how can you even begin to think that that is it for God? How many other Big Bang are there in the universe that we cannot see. Or even fathom to exist. God could never be thought of in terms of being microscopic but to carry it on what is to say that the Big Bang was nothing more than a muon or a quark exploding.
Here's my theory: The first 'light' was presumably the 'Big Bang'.
By the third 'day' this light would have been pretty much non-existent; The rate at which the universe was expanding was slowing down by then.
The earth needed its own light/heat source, hence the sun being created.
Maybe?
As vast as the universe is how can you even begin to think that that is it for God? How many other Big Bang are there in the universe that we cannot see. Or even fathom to exist. God could never be thought of in terms of being microscopic but to carry it on what is to say that the Big Bang was nothing more than a muon or a quark exploding.
In the beginning....
kensloft wrote: As vast as the universe is how can you even begin to think that that is it for God? How many other Big Bang are there in the universe that we cannot see. Or even fathom to exist. God could never be thought of in terms of being microscopic but to carry it on what is to say that the Big Bang was nothing more than a muon or a quark exploding.
It's because of it's great vastness, that mankind cant help but to marvel at it. Mankind has been searching for the 'place where God lives' ever since we first opened our eyes. And the beauty and sheer magnitude of the universe is breathtaking. What we do know doesnt even scratch the surface of what we dont. Now you begin to see the magnitude of awe, that two great religions feel, for the mighty GOD who spoke it all into existence. Just by speaking...
But God Himself holds man as the greatest of His creation. The one thing that God didnt speak into creation was man. He got His hands dirty with that one. It appeals to a primal need in human beings, to be so beloved. We need that. According to genesis, it was the first thing God said WASNT good. That man should be alone. All that we see proclaims the wonderfulness of the ONE who made it. Now dont get me wrong, I believe in the science of HOW things came about, but I also believe in WHO caused it. The basic element for EVERYTHING is the carbon molecule. EVERYTHING! But the marvelous miracle of it all, is how infintisimal the variety of the arrangements of it! A flower, a fish, a star, a tree, a human being...etc. But it all has order, purpose and effect. There are no accidents in them. They are all linked to each other in a magnificent chain of life. I just happen to stand in the corner of Who I believe is the source of it all. I dont believe we came out of chaos. Chaos cannot order itself. So what caused all this variety of life out of nothing? I know where I stand on the question. We were given dominion of the visible. This is the plane of existence we were given. Everything that we see is ours to explore. We've been given answers to our basic questions as to why. The problem is, that mankind tries so hard to forget who gave it to us.
It's because of it's great vastness, that mankind cant help but to marvel at it. Mankind has been searching for the 'place where God lives' ever since we first opened our eyes. And the beauty and sheer magnitude of the universe is breathtaking. What we do know doesnt even scratch the surface of what we dont. Now you begin to see the magnitude of awe, that two great religions feel, for the mighty GOD who spoke it all into existence. Just by speaking...
But God Himself holds man as the greatest of His creation. The one thing that God didnt speak into creation was man. He got His hands dirty with that one. It appeals to a primal need in human beings, to be so beloved. We need that. According to genesis, it was the first thing God said WASNT good. That man should be alone. All that we see proclaims the wonderfulness of the ONE who made it. Now dont get me wrong, I believe in the science of HOW things came about, but I also believe in WHO caused it. The basic element for EVERYTHING is the carbon molecule. EVERYTHING! But the marvelous miracle of it all, is how infintisimal the variety of the arrangements of it! A flower, a fish, a star, a tree, a human being...etc. But it all has order, purpose and effect. There are no accidents in them. They are all linked to each other in a magnificent chain of life. I just happen to stand in the corner of Who I believe is the source of it all. I dont believe we came out of chaos. Chaos cannot order itself. So what caused all this variety of life out of nothing? I know where I stand on the question. We were given dominion of the visible. This is the plane of existence we were given. Everything that we see is ours to explore. We've been given answers to our basic questions as to why. The problem is, that mankind tries so hard to forget who gave it to us.
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
In the beginning....
sagan wrote: Thanks for the hug Koan Nice to be back.
An energy release that would have vaporised any matter you care to name. Impossible conditions for anything to exist, let alone feeble biological systems, particularly as the bible insists that the earth was 'created' on the first day at the same time as the heavens.
But light isn't just a handy way for humans to avoid bumping into the furniture. How did those plants that god created on the fourth day survive without the sun to drive their photosynthetic process?
Genesis 2:5- And every plant of the field BEFORE it was in the earth, and every herb of the field BEFORE it grew: For the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
Nice to be back.An energy release that would have vaporised any matter you care to name. Impossible conditions for anything to exist, let alone feeble biological systems, particularly as the bible insists that the earth was 'created' on the first day at the same time as the heavens.
But light isn't just a handy way for humans to avoid bumping into the furniture. How did those plants that god created on the fourth day survive without the sun to drive their photosynthetic process?
Genesis 2:5- And every plant of the field BEFORE it was in the earth, and every herb of the field BEFORE it grew: For the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
In the beginning....
raven :-6
The BBQ hasn't started yet so I can still post. LOL
Actually you should appreciate this one. Paul Davies is a mathematical physicist. The following quote is from his book "The Mind of God". I am only part way through the book so I can't really answer any questions about it. With my visual impairment it takes time to read.
p232 I cheated and read the last paragraph.
"What does it mean? What is Man that we might be party to such privilege? I cannot believe that our existence in this universe is a mere quirk of fate, an accident of history, an incidental blip in the great cosmic drama. Our involvement is too intimate. The physical species Homo may count for nothing, but the existence of mind in some organizm on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be notrivialdetail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here."
This is why it seems to me futile to be arguing based on the creation stories in Genesis. They are a myth meant to convey truth not historical fact.
And to Sagan, yes, welcome back. Hope you are rested.
Shalom
Ted
:-6
The BBQ hasn't started yet so I can still post. LOL
Actually you should appreciate this one. Paul Davies is a mathematical physicist. The following quote is from his book "The Mind of God". I am only part way through the book so I can't really answer any questions about it. With my visual impairment it takes time to read.
p232 I cheated and read the last paragraph.
"What does it mean? What is Man that we might be party to such privilege? I cannot believe that our existence in this universe is a mere quirk of fate, an accident of history, an incidental blip in the great cosmic drama. Our involvement is too intimate. The physical species Homo may count for nothing, but the existence of mind in some organizm on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be notrivialdetail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here."
This is why it seems to me futile to be arguing based on the creation stories in Genesis. They are a myth meant to convey truth not historical fact.
And to Sagan, yes, welcome back. Hope you are rested.
Shalom
Ted
:-6
In the beginning....
sagan wrote: But light isn't just a handy way for humans to avoid bumping into the furniture. How did those plants that god created on the fourth day survive without the sun to drive their photosynthetic process?The plants were created on the THIRD day. If a being is powerful enough to create plants out of nothing then I think that he/she would be capable of sustaining life in plants without the aid of the sun. The laws of nature as we know them were probably not set into motion until the completion of creation. Therefore, I would think that things might have existed in a state of suspended antimation during the seven days of creation (six days if you don't count the seventh as a "creation" day as it was a day of rest.)
"A candle loses nothing of its light by lighting another candle." -James Keller
Say what you mean but don't say it mean. :yh_peace
Say what you mean but don't say it mean. :yh_peace
In the beginning....
I have only ever found the creation myth to have any value when read "metaphysically".
To me "light" represents energy. Where does energy come from? It is is the source for all things yet has no source. It can be harnessed and manipulated but not truly created. (My science may be wrong...but light as the bible states it still means energy to me)
Dividing the light from the darkness. If Energy represents the principle of One, the light from darkness represents the principle of two. Until there is division, light from dark, up from down etc...there is still nothing. This is the potential of creation.
Then comes firmament divided from the waters (heaven/up from down). This is an extension of the two principle we are still dividing.
Now the principle of three. The Earth. This is the "child", the actual creation or result of expended energy or movement. It is the first solid or reference point of which anything can be discussed. Along with solid matter comes grasses, fruit, all the goodies.
Principle of four. Stability and foundations. Now the bible repeats the light theme but it is now manifest. Hence the mention of sun, moon, stars etc. Not just light/energy but solid forms of it. Hey doesn't it mention seasons at this point...how many are there? Four.
Is anyone getting what I'm saying here?
To me "light" represents energy. Where does energy come from? It is is the source for all things yet has no source. It can be harnessed and manipulated but not truly created. (My science may be wrong...but light as the bible states it still means energy to me)
Dividing the light from the darkness. If Energy represents the principle of One, the light from darkness represents the principle of two. Until there is division, light from dark, up from down etc...there is still nothing. This is the potential of creation.
Then comes firmament divided from the waters (heaven/up from down). This is an extension of the two principle we are still dividing.
Now the principle of three. The Earth. This is the "child", the actual creation or result of expended energy or movement. It is the first solid or reference point of which anything can be discussed. Along with solid matter comes grasses, fruit, all the goodies.
Principle of four. Stability and foundations. Now the bible repeats the light theme but it is now manifest. Hence the mention of sun, moon, stars etc. Not just light/energy but solid forms of it. Hey doesn't it mention seasons at this point...how many are there? Four.
Is anyone getting what I'm saying here?
In the beginning....
koan wrote: I have only ever found the creation myth to have any value when read "metaphysically".
To me "light" represents energy. Where does energy come from? It is is the source for all things yet has no source. It can be harnessed and manipulated but not truly created. (My science may be wrong...but light as the bible states it still means energy to me)
Dividing the light from the darkness. If Energy represents the principle of One, the light from darkness represents the principle of two. Until there is division, light from dark, up from down etc...there is still nothing. This is the potential of creation.
Then comes firmament divided from the waters (heaven/up from down). This is an extension of the two principle we are still dividing.
Now the principle of three. The Earth. This is the "child", the actual creation or result of expended energy or movement. It is the first solid or reference point of which anything can be discussed. Along with solid matter comes grasses, fruit, all the goodies.
Principle of four. Stability and foundations. Now the bible repeats the light theme but it is now manifest. Hence the mention of sun, moon, stars etc. Not just light/energy but solid forms of it. Hey doesn't it mention seasons at this point...how many are there? Four.
Is anyone getting what I'm saying here?
Awesome. Great perspectives. Who gets to say how long or what a God Day is? All that the entire argument boils down to is the time element. Poof, it is here because magically it has appeared or it has evolved into what we see before us. Just a matter of realizing that the time plane is is question therefore precluding them from any thoughts of God's existence because they are busy arguing about how the time frame relates to their beliefs.
Realizing that it still comes from energy, which can neither be created nor destroyed, hence it is, forever in ever changing forms. No matter what form it assumes it is there for eternity.
Mother earth is a good concept for conveying that earth is created from the entire firmament but it precludes that there could be any other life form that may have evolved out of similar circumstances somewhere in this universe let alone any other universes that may exist.
Four seasons. Woo-Hoo!!!
To me "light" represents energy. Where does energy come from? It is is the source for all things yet has no source. It can be harnessed and manipulated but not truly created. (My science may be wrong...but light as the bible states it still means energy to me)
Dividing the light from the darkness. If Energy represents the principle of One, the light from darkness represents the principle of two. Until there is division, light from dark, up from down etc...there is still nothing. This is the potential of creation.
Then comes firmament divided from the waters (heaven/up from down). This is an extension of the two principle we are still dividing.
Now the principle of three. The Earth. This is the "child", the actual creation or result of expended energy or movement. It is the first solid or reference point of which anything can be discussed. Along with solid matter comes grasses, fruit, all the goodies.
Principle of four. Stability and foundations. Now the bible repeats the light theme but it is now manifest. Hence the mention of sun, moon, stars etc. Not just light/energy but solid forms of it. Hey doesn't it mention seasons at this point...how many are there? Four.
Is anyone getting what I'm saying here?
Awesome. Great perspectives. Who gets to say how long or what a God Day is? All that the entire argument boils down to is the time element. Poof, it is here because magically it has appeared or it has evolved into what we see before us. Just a matter of realizing that the time plane is is question therefore precluding them from any thoughts of God's existence because they are busy arguing about how the time frame relates to their beliefs.
Realizing that it still comes from energy, which can neither be created nor destroyed, hence it is, forever in ever changing forms. No matter what form it assumes it is there for eternity.
Mother earth is a good concept for conveying that earth is created from the entire firmament but it precludes that there could be any other life form that may have evolved out of similar circumstances somewhere in this universe let alone any other universes that may exist.
Four seasons. Woo-Hoo!!!
In the beginning....
kensloft wrote: Awesome. Great perspectives. Who gets to say how long or what a God Day is? All that the entire argument boils down to is the time element. Poof, it is here because magically it has appeared or it has evolved into what we see before us. Just a matter of realizing that the time plane is is question therefore precluding them from any thoughts of God's existence because they are busy arguing about how the time frame relates to their beliefs.
Realizing that it still comes from energy, which can neither be created nor destroyed, hence it is, forever in ever changing forms. No matter what form it assumes it is there for eternity.
Mother earth is a good concept for conveying that earth is created from the entire firmament but it precludes that there could be any other life form that may have evolved out of similar circumstances somewhere in this universe let alone any other universes that may exist.
Four seasons. Woo-Hoo!!!
I don't think a God day exists. Time is only an Earthly matter. Why would God need time? The word "day" is probably a matter of convenience, for expression and communication.
I believe Genesis was written by Jewish Kabbalists. There is the initiate level of understanding what is said and then there is the literal meaning for the "masses". The initiate meanings are not so secret anymore.
Nothing is precluded. This is the story of Earths creation. It doesn't say "and God created nothing else".
"Day" Five. Life is created. Five represents the microcosm. Movement from something solid into its next form. Five senses.
Day Six. Man and beast. Six represents equilibrium and perfection. Movement becomes balanced. There is success. Kabbalistically also represents beauty.
On the Seventh Day God rested. Seven in Kabbalism represents occult intelligence. It often indicates search for wisdom, growth of spirit, and a fondness/ harmony with nature.
How great is God? God is great and God is horrible. God is all things. We fight over what it is and what it wants us to do...I say it wants us to "rest".
Realizing that it still comes from energy, which can neither be created nor destroyed, hence it is, forever in ever changing forms. No matter what form it assumes it is there for eternity.
Mother earth is a good concept for conveying that earth is created from the entire firmament but it precludes that there could be any other life form that may have evolved out of similar circumstances somewhere in this universe let alone any other universes that may exist.
Four seasons. Woo-Hoo!!!
I don't think a God day exists. Time is only an Earthly matter. Why would God need time? The word "day" is probably a matter of convenience, for expression and communication.
I believe Genesis was written by Jewish Kabbalists. There is the initiate level of understanding what is said and then there is the literal meaning for the "masses". The initiate meanings are not so secret anymore.
Nothing is precluded. This is the story of Earths creation. It doesn't say "and God created nothing else".
"Day" Five. Life is created. Five represents the microcosm. Movement from something solid into its next form. Five senses.
Day Six. Man and beast. Six represents equilibrium and perfection. Movement becomes balanced. There is success. Kabbalistically also represents beauty.
On the Seventh Day God rested. Seven in Kabbalism represents occult intelligence. It often indicates search for wisdom, growth of spirit, and a fondness/ harmony with nature.
How great is God? God is great and God is horrible. God is all things. We fight over what it is and what it wants us to do...I say it wants us to "rest".
In the beginning....
koan wrote: I don't think a God day exists. Time is only an Earthly matter. Why would God need time? The word "day" is probably a matter of convenience, for expression and communication.
I believe Genesis was written by Jewish Kabbalists. There is the initiate level of understanding what is said and then there is the literal meaning for the "masses". The initiate meanings are not so secret anymore.
Nothing is precluded. This is the story of Earths creation. It doesn't say "and God created nothing else".
"Day" Five. Life is created. Five represents the microcosm. Movement from something solid into its next form. Five senses.
Day Six. Man and beast. Six represents equilibrium and perfection. Movement becomes balanced. There is success. Kabbalistically also represents beauty.
On the Seventh Day God rested. Seven in Kabbalism represents occult intelligence. It often indicates search for wisdom, growth of spirit, and a fondness/ harmony with nature.
How great is God? God is great and God is horrible. God is all things. We fight over what it is and what it wants us to do...I say it wants us to "rest".
In the English langauge the accepted term for a twenty-four hour day is the word day. God created the world in seven days. That is a given. What is not given is the length of the day. They could be 24 hours or 1 and 95/100 th billion years(assuming that the universe as we know it is the sum total of the world that God inhabits.) It, the earth, appeared magically or evolved. That is the question. If God didn't understand nor need the concept of time then he wouldn't tell us about it. The precision with which it is acted upon is irrefutable.
I believe Genesis was written by Jewish Kabbalists. There is the initiate level of understanding what is said and then there is the literal meaning for the "masses". The initiate meanings are not so secret anymore.
Nothing is precluded. This is the story of Earths creation. It doesn't say "and God created nothing else".
"Day" Five. Life is created. Five represents the microcosm. Movement from something solid into its next form. Five senses.
Day Six. Man and beast. Six represents equilibrium and perfection. Movement becomes balanced. There is success. Kabbalistically also represents beauty.
On the Seventh Day God rested. Seven in Kabbalism represents occult intelligence. It often indicates search for wisdom, growth of spirit, and a fondness/ harmony with nature.
How great is God? God is great and God is horrible. God is all things. We fight over what it is and what it wants us to do...I say it wants us to "rest".
In the English langauge the accepted term for a twenty-four hour day is the word day. God created the world in seven days. That is a given. What is not given is the length of the day. They could be 24 hours or 1 and 95/100 th billion years(assuming that the universe as we know it is the sum total of the world that God inhabits.) It, the earth, appeared magically or evolved. That is the question. If God didn't understand nor need the concept of time then he wouldn't tell us about it. The precision with which it is acted upon is irrefutable.
In the beginning....
sagan wrote: But the need for love and comfort that homo-sapiens feel as a social animal has existed for as long as our species has been around. It may comfort some to feel that this existence is the result of an almighty and loving creator, but that need for comfort doesn't equate to it being true. You look at humanity and see your god's greatest creation. I look at humanity and I see a hairless primate. If humanity is your gods pride and joy, then why do we see the effects of evolutionary mutation in our species? Why do we see so many design faults in the human body?
How can an omnipotent, omnicognisant god create/design something that wasn't good? How, in fact, can he make any kind of mistake at all?
I've often been amazed how a theist can hold this position. On one hand you can accept the validity of the scientific explanations for the physical world, and presumably, the methods these explanations are reached - hypothesize, test, observe, measure, record and repeat results. But then have no problem in throwing the scientific methodology that you believe serves well enough for explaining everything else out the window when the existence of 'god(s)'is under discussion. Incidentally, the carbon molecule isn't the basic element for everything, only life on this planet.
Chaos is ordering itself every second of every day, from the macroscopic to the quantum level.
No, not a case of forgetting. The problem is that some won't accept that it has been 'given' to us. We won't accept it has been 'given' because there is not, and never has been, a single shred of evidence for a supernatural 'giver'.
This gives us the question that is being begged. Who gave it to us.
How can an omnipotent, omnicognisant god create/design something that wasn't good? How, in fact, can he make any kind of mistake at all?
I've often been amazed how a theist can hold this position. On one hand you can accept the validity of the scientific explanations for the physical world, and presumably, the methods these explanations are reached - hypothesize, test, observe, measure, record and repeat results. But then have no problem in throwing the scientific methodology that you believe serves well enough for explaining everything else out the window when the existence of 'god(s)'is under discussion. Incidentally, the carbon molecule isn't the basic element for everything, only life on this planet.
Chaos is ordering itself every second of every day, from the macroscopic to the quantum level.
No, not a case of forgetting. The problem is that some won't accept that it has been 'given' to us. We won't accept it has been 'given' because there is not, and never has been, a single shred of evidence for a supernatural 'giver'.
This gives us the question that is being begged. Who gave it to us.
In the beginning....
kensloft wrote: In the English langauge the accepted term for a twenty-four hour day is the word day. God created the world in seven days. That is a given. What is not given is the length of the day. They could be 24 hours or 1 and 95/100 th billion years(assuming that the universe as we know it is the sum total of the world that God inhabits.) It, the earth, appeared magically or evolved. That is the question. If God didn't understand nor need the concept of time then he wouldn't tell us about it. The precision with which it is acted upon is irrefutable.
You are taking what I offered as a metaphysical interpretation and reducing it to physical terminology which undermines the explanation. Day represents a sequence of events, the word day was used to give a literal and lesser meaning to the masses. You can be a member of the masses or you can think outside the box like an initiate. :yh_tongue
Energy appeared "magically" not the earth. The numerical values describe the process of devolution into physical matter. The precision is in the use of the numbers not in the use of the word "day". I know you can think in conceptual, non physical terms. Words are only a doorway.
You are taking what I offered as a metaphysical interpretation and reducing it to physical terminology which undermines the explanation. Day represents a sequence of events, the word day was used to give a literal and lesser meaning to the masses. You can be a member of the masses or you can think outside the box like an initiate. :yh_tongue
Energy appeared "magically" not the earth. The numerical values describe the process of devolution into physical matter. The precision is in the use of the numbers not in the use of the word "day". I know you can think in conceptual, non physical terms. Words are only a doorway.
In the beginning....
sagan wrote: But the need for love and comfort that homo-sapiens feel as a social animal has existed for as long as our species has been around. It may comfort some to feel that this existence is the result of an almighty and loving creator, but that need for comfort doesn't equate to it being true. You look at humanity and see your god's greatest creation. I look at humanity and I see a hairless primate. If humanity is your gods pride and joy, then why do we see the effects of evolutionary mutation in our species? Why do we see so many design faults in the human body?
I agree that the desire to comforted and loved has created a great number of myths and religious ideas. Our desire to be loved does not prove the existence of anything. As for the flaws in the human body; that it works at all is pretty amazing. There are many religious ideas about why some people are born with imperfect bodies none of which serve the discussion at hand. I do see your point though. It does only say that "He saw it was good." It doesn't say He saw it was perfect.
sagan wrote: I've often been amazed how a theist can hold this position. On one hand you can accept the validity of the scientific explanations for the physical world, and presumably, the methods these explanations are reached - hypothesize, test, observe, measure, record and repeat results. But then have no problem in throwing the scientific methodology that you believe serves well enough for explaining everything else out the window when the existence of 'god(s)'is under discussion. Incidentally, the carbon molecule isn't the basic element for everything, only life on this planet.
I think thiests believe that God made the scientific laws to work as they do. The order that science has found is then attributed to God's brilliance. It just took us some work to figure out what "He" already knew.
sagan wrote: No, not a case of forgetting. The problem is that some won't accept that it has been 'given' to us. We won't accept it has been 'given' because there is not, and never has been, a single shred of evidence for a supernatural 'giver'.
Many people have experienced what nonbelievers would call hallucinations or some such thing. There is evidence you just haven't discovered it. That is the arguement. Maybe the proof can't be measured it has to be experienced and the scientific approach may hinder the experience. There is no proof that the experiencers didn't have their transcendental experiences. If one experiences something enlightening there is no need to prove it to anyone. It is just known.
I agree that the desire to comforted and loved has created a great number of myths and religious ideas. Our desire to be loved does not prove the existence of anything. As for the flaws in the human body; that it works at all is pretty amazing. There are many religious ideas about why some people are born with imperfect bodies none of which serve the discussion at hand. I do see your point though. It does only say that "He saw it was good." It doesn't say He saw it was perfect.
sagan wrote: I've often been amazed how a theist can hold this position. On one hand you can accept the validity of the scientific explanations for the physical world, and presumably, the methods these explanations are reached - hypothesize, test, observe, measure, record and repeat results. But then have no problem in throwing the scientific methodology that you believe serves well enough for explaining everything else out the window when the existence of 'god(s)'is under discussion. Incidentally, the carbon molecule isn't the basic element for everything, only life on this planet.
I think thiests believe that God made the scientific laws to work as they do. The order that science has found is then attributed to God's brilliance. It just took us some work to figure out what "He" already knew.
sagan wrote: No, not a case of forgetting. The problem is that some won't accept that it has been 'given' to us. We won't accept it has been 'given' because there is not, and never has been, a single shred of evidence for a supernatural 'giver'.
Many people have experienced what nonbelievers would call hallucinations or some such thing. There is evidence you just haven't discovered it. That is the arguement. Maybe the proof can't be measured it has to be experienced and the scientific approach may hinder the experience. There is no proof that the experiencers didn't have their transcendental experiences. If one experiences something enlightening there is no need to prove it to anyone. It is just known.
In the beginning....
sagan wrote: Why assume anyone/thing gave it Ken? Positing a creator has its problems. Even a small child can ask the question: "If god created the universe, then who created god?" If the answer is that God is uncaused, then the same answer could certainly be applied to the existence of the Universe  that it is uncaused. The formation of the universe from nothing need not violate physical laws such as conservation of energy. The gravitational potential energy of a gravitational field is negative. When all the gravitational potential energy is added to all the other energy in the universe, it may add up to zero, and we have good observational evidence to believe the zero sum hypothesis is possible. If you can get hold of it, read some of the work by Alan Guth, particularly 'The Inflationary Universe' 1997.
Stephen Hawking has speculated that the universe is finite, yet unbounded. To paraphrase Hawking: "...there would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time...The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE" (Hawking, 1988).
A fuller analysis of Hawking's theory can be found here:
Hawkings
Hawkings, although he later retracted it, also postulated that the world would reach a point where it would then reverse. A teacup that had fallen would then lift off the floor and reassemble itself. Apparently one of the numbers in his equation ending up being faulty.
Hawkings is fascinating. I'm glad he is on video now for those too impatient to read.
Stephen Hawking has speculated that the universe is finite, yet unbounded. To paraphrase Hawking: "...there would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time...The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE" (Hawking, 1988).
A fuller analysis of Hawking's theory can be found here:
Hawkings
Hawkings, although he later retracted it, also postulated that the world would reach a point where it would then reverse. A teacup that had fallen would then lift off the floor and reassemble itself. Apparently one of the numbers in his equation ending up being faulty.
Hawkings is fascinating. I'm glad he is on video now for those too impatient to read.