Be A Born Again To Be Enter In The Eternal Glory..

[tinoymalayil 0]

Hi friends,It is mandatory to be a Born again to experiance the happiness in jesus.Please not to be stay as an ordinary christian.Read Bible daily and try to practise whatever u learn from the Bible.Jesus Christ crucified for us ..Believe in Jesus and search for the willing of god.Be a Christian(Follower of Christ)...Please read the book Pilgrims Progress by John Bunyan..Its a book explains the eternal glory,happiness,peace etc...

[zanzibarjones 1]

I have to admit, that even though I am a devout Christian, I don not read the bible as much as I should. I find it hard to get through some of the books, like leviticus and numbers....But I agree with you. If you are going to "Be for God and his kingdom" put forth 100% or don't put forth at all.A baseball team wants players who play, not just sit in the outfield and do nothing.

[Bikerman 2]

So, do you believe in the literal truth of the bible? Does that include the Genesis account of creation, Noah's ark etc? Or do you concentrate on the New Testament?(Born again atheist who has read and still reads the bible)

Edited August 18, 2010 by Bikerman (see edit history)

[truefusion 3]

So, do you believe in the literal truth of the bible? Does that include the Genesis account of creation, Noah's ark etc? Or do you concentrate on the New Testament?

All three are possible at the same time and all three is generally the case with any believer.

[Bikerman 2]

All three are possible at the same time and all three is generally the case with any believer.

No, it isn't really. The vast majority of Christians nowadays don't take the Genesis account literally (it was never intended to be literal, it is a creation myth). The only people who take it literally are Christians we generally call creationists. Interestingly enough they believe that they are upholding a tradition, but it isn't actually the case.
The problem with taking the bible literally is, basically, it is daft. The notion of a 6 dat creation a few thousand years ago is sheerest nonsense. Once people start to get comfortable believing nonsense then it is all bad from that point.

[web_designer 7]

i always believe in the eternal glory. and we should be a true believers or we won't deserve it. but unfortunately, being a true believer is a hard thing to do nowadays, we should read our holy book, understand it and try to follow what it says and be a better persons than we are, praying daily and helping people....ect. therefore with all the problems in real life, following the rules of our religion is hard to be done but still worthy to do and teach our children to do it. if not for the eternal glory it should be for feeling we are close to our god, and this feeling will save our souls so many times when we are in need to, because we will realize that there is someone is looking for us, bigger than me and bigger than you.

[Bikerman 2]

i always believe in the eternal glory. and we should be a true believers or we won't deserve it. but unfortunately, being a true believer is a hard thing to do nowadays, we should read our holy book, understand it and try to follow what it says and be a better persons than we are, praying daily and helping people....ect.

I used to believe that a long time ago. Eventually I realised that what I was reading was a two thousand year old set of stories about someone who may have existed and had some nice ideas in philosophy. The rest was really not sensible, and as for the Old Testament - Yaweh is an extremely nasty God in the OT. He spends a lot of the time killing people who don't believe in him, killing people who do, but don't grovel sufficiently, and killing pretty much everybody, one way or another.I find him an intensely nasty character and the idea of worshipping him seems very wrong to me.I agree that we shoul strive to improve each day and that helping others is one part of that. I get that from thinking a lot about life and working out an ethical way to behave, rather than any religious source.

therefore with all the problems in real life, following the rules of our religion is hard to be done but still worthy to do and teach our children to do it. if not for the eternal glory it should be for feeling we are close to our god, and this feeling will save our souls so many times when we are in need to, because we will realize that there is someone is looking for us, bigger than me and bigger than you.

Well, I can't say that I believe in the fires of hell (or eternal paradise for that matter). Once the brain is unconscious then you are not there anymore - as we see each night. Modern science has taught us quite a bit about the brain, the mind and how they are linked together, so the religious notion of resurrection - notion that we somehow can be conscious after the brain dies..well again I find it a bit silly really to be honest. I also don't like the idea that people would behave themselves just out of fear or hope of reward. I think behaving well is it's own reward and there is no need for stories to frighten people into it.
It must be quite nice to feel that there is someone looking after you, but I'm afraid I've lived long enough to see many friends and acquaintences with that same belief be rather badly let down by it. I have never understood how any father figure could possibly allow the evil and torment that is so much a part of so many lives. Why let babies suffer? Surely they are innocent? It is my observation that good people don't always get good things and evil people sometimes do prosper.

[zanzibarjones 1]

If I am going to believe in God, then I have to believe that he gave us an accurate account of history according to the bible. The literal truth of the bible? Well I would say yes. People's interpretations are explained in the manner in which they know. For instance, If you were living back before Christ was born, how would you describe, say a Helicopter?Noah's Ark? I believe it did exist. Where is it? I have no idea, it could have been dismantled and used for shelter.Faith requires you to believe 100%. Either you do or you don't. I mean you believe in gravity right? You can't see it, but you know it's there because of the effects it produces. Same thing goes for God. I believe because of what I see. I may not see him, but I do see the things he has done and does.

[truefusion 3]

No, it isn't really.

Yes, it is. A Christian can believe in the literal truth(s) of the Bible while concentrating mostly on the New Testament. Why do you think this impossible?

The vast majority of Christians nowadays don't take the Genesis account literally (it was never intended to be literal, it is a creation myth). The only people who take it literally are Christians we generally call creationists.

Observably, there are three known positions: young-earth creationism, old-earth creationism, and the position that doesn't believe in the Biblical account of the creation of this universe and all that inhabit it (yes, this involves those that claim to be Christians). Observably, the majority rests in the first two. The third position requires an entire rewrite of the Genesis account in order to fit any newly conceived views, and therefore it is less likely to be seen among Christians.

The problem with taking the bible literally is, basically, it is daft. The notion of a 6 [day] creation a few thousand years ago is sheerest nonsense. Once people start to get comfortable believing nonsense then it is all bad from that point.

However, i'm sure that even you would agree that claiming that something is stupid because one doesn't understand it is itself illogical. While i would agree that young-earth creationism isn't Biblical, it is not the only position, and after coming to the realization of the information therein, the Genesis account is no longer seen as non-sense.

[Bikerman 2]

Yes, it is. A Christian can believe in the literal truth(s) of the Bible while concentrating mostly on the New Testament. Why do you think this impossible?

Because I have studied science and I know what radiometric dating is, amongst other things. Because I know people do not live to 900 years and beyond. Because I know that you cannot build a wooden boat over 400ft long. Because I know that genetic lineage can trace back mankind's history and show directly where we branched from common ancestors. Because I know that radiometric dating is accurate plus or minus a couple of percent and I know that the fossil record plus the geological record clearly demonstrate that evolutionary theory is beyond reasonable doubt. These and another few hundred reasons would be the main thing...

Observably, there are three known positions: young-earth creationism, old-earth creationism, and the position that doesn't believe in the Biblical account of the creation of this universe and all that inhabit it (yes, this involves those that claim to be Christians). Observably, the majority rests in the first two. The third position requires an entire rewrite of the Genesis account in order to fit any newly conceived views, and therefore it is less likely to be seen among Christians.

No you have it completely backwards. There are creationists - YECs and OECs, and a few in between which I won't go into but involve various levels of 'literality'; then there is the rest of Christianity - Catholics, most Protestant denominations, Eastern Orthodox, Greek Orthodox etc etc. The creationists are mostly in the US, though we have quite a few in the UK. The Catholics alone hugely outnumber creationists (by about half a billion).
Rewriting the Genesis account is something that is not needed - you interpret it as it is meant - the Jewish creation myth. You don't need to re-write T.S Elliot or Shakespeare, but you also know it is not describing history. Same thing.

However, i'm sure that even you would agree that claiming that something is stupid because one doesn't understand it is itself illogical. While i would agree that young-earth creationism isn't Biblical, it is not the only position, and after coming to the realization of the information therein, the Genesis account is no longer seen as non-sense.

Yes, it is. I could take it apart verse by verse if you like and show you each impossibility. We could start with Genesis 1 and show why the sequence of creation is completely impossible and actually silly if you read it literally - no matter whether you believe a Yaum (period of time) is a day or a million years. It simply cannot work as a literal explanation. I understand it pretty well thanks. 12 years of education by various Jesuit and Salesian monks means I know the bible better than most...
Edited August 20, 2010 by Bikerman (see edit history)

[truefusion 3]

Because I have studied science and I know what radiometric dating is, amongst other things. Because I know people do not live to 900 years and beyond. Because I know that you cannot build a wooden boat over 400ft long. Because I know that genetic lineage can trace back mankind's history and show directly where we branched from common ancestors. Because I know that radiometric dating is accurate plus or minus a couple of percent and I know that the fossil record plus the geological record clearly demonstrate that evolutionary theory is beyond reasonable doubt. These and another few hundred reasons would be the main thing...

Cool, but i asked why you think it impossible for Christians. It is obvious that you don't think it is possible for yourself.

Rewriting the Genesis account is something that is not needed - you interpret it as it is meant - the Jewish creation myth. You don't need to re-write T.S Elliot or Shakespeare, but you also know it is not describing history. Same thing.

You are right that rewriting the story is not needed. Nevertheless, people still do and therefore claim it is a myth (though the term myth itself doesn't imply falsehood, but it is obvious that you intend it to imply falsehood).

Yes, it is. I could take it apart verse by verse if you like and show you each impossibility. We could start with Genesis 1 and show why the sequence of creation is completely impossible and actually silly if you read it literally - no matter whether you believe a Yaum (period of time) is a day or a million years. It simply cannot work as a literal explanation. I understand it pretty well thanks. 12 years of education by various Jesuit and Salesian monks means I know the bible better than most...

Then show me your 12-year education and how it cannot work.

[Bikerman 2]

Cool, but i asked why you think it impossible for Christians. It is obvious that you don't think it is possible for yourself.

If a Christian wants to believe that which is not possible then yes, it is possible to hold such a belief. I sort of assumed we were talking about belief which had a possibility of being true...?

You are right that rewriting the story is not needed. Nevertheless, people still do and therefore claim it is a myth (though the term myth itself doesn't imply falsehood, but it is obvious that you intend it to imply falsehood).

Well it is a myth - it is the Hebrew creation myth which the Christians later adopt. There is no falsehood implied by me. I don't think Shakespeare was a liar but I don't take his plays as literal truth either.

Then show me your 12-year education and how it cannot work.

OK..very quickly...
1. Chronology. BB is 13,7 billion years ago. Earth is 4.55 billion years old. The Genesis account cannot, whatever interval you assume between 'days' accomodate that basic ratio of times.
2. A brief summary of genesis in chronological order gives us:
Day 1 Creation of Day and Night
Day 2 Creation of Heaven
Day 3 Creation of the Earth, the Seas, and the Plants
Day 4 Creation of the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars
Day 5 Creation of Fishes and Birds [beginning of Sexual Reproduction]
Day 6 Creation of Land Animals (Cattle, Insects, Reptiles, Man)
It does not take a genius to realise that day and night are effects of the earth spinning around an axis whilst orbiting the sun, and therefore to talk of day and night on day 1 is nonsensical. Nor does it take much intelligence to Realise that you don't create plants on day 3 and then create their source of energy on day 4 - t'other way around. Then we have the earth and seas and planets before the creation of the sun and moon...nope...that doesn't fly.
Then we have a silly appearance of life. Fishes is good - that at least corresponds in a sort of way to reality. But not birds...way WAY too early. They should be on day 6. Of course we know that first life appeared around 3.5 billion years ago and was a small green organism - an algae. This lasted for probably a billion years with nothing else, aside from primitive bateria. Genesis misses out this important step which means non of the rest can work because this period of time is needed to actually put the oxygen into the atmosphere (the earth did not form with an oxygen atmosphere - oxygen is given out by life generally, so you need photosynthesis to have been going for a long long time before you have anything that animals can breathe....
I could go on, but it isn't really necessary. The account bears so little relation to anything that actually happened that it would take all night to highlight each individual inconsistency...
There is a good rule in science. You can confirm something as many times as you like but you can never say it is absolutely positively true. It only takes one fact, however, to say it is absolutely positively false.
(Thus we can watch the sun rise millions of times in the morning, but never say 100% that it will always do so - and indeed it is certain that one 'day' it won't).
Edited August 20, 2010 by Bikerman (see edit history)

[truefusion 3]

There is no falsehood implied by me.

It is impossible for you to state what you have so far stated without implying that the Biblical account of creation is false.

 

OK..very quickly...

1. Chronology. BB is 13,7 billion years ago. Earth is 4.55 billion years old. The Genesis account cannot, whatever interval you assume between 'days' accomodate that basic ratio of times.

2. A brief summary of genesis in chronological order gives us:

Day 1 Creation of Day and Night

Day 2 Creation of Heaven

Day 3 Creation of the Earth, the Seas, and the Plants

Day 4 Creation of the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars

Day 5 Creation of Fishes and Birds [beginning of Sexual Reproduction]

Day 6 Creation of Land Animals (Cattle, Insects, Reptiles, Man)

It does not take a genius to realise that day and night are effects of the earth spinning around an axis whilst orbiting the sun, and therefore to talk of day and night on day 1 is nonsensical. Nor does it take much intelligence to Realise that you don't create plants on day 3 and then create their source of energy on day 4 - t'other way around. Then we have the earth and seas and planets before the creation of the sun and moon...nope...that doesn't fly.

Then we have a silly appearance of life. Fishes is good - that at least corresponds in a sort of way to reality. But not birds...way WAY too early. They should be on day 6. Of course we know that first life appeared around 3.5 billion years ago and was a small green organism - an algae. This lasted for probably a billion years with nothing else, aside from primitive bateria. Genesis misses out this important step which means non of the rest can work because this period of time is needed to actually put the oxygen into the atmosphere (the earth did not form with an oxygen atmosphere - oxygen is given out by life generally, so you need photosynthesis to have been going for a long long time before you have anything that animals can breathe....

I could go on, but it isn't really necessary. The account bears so little relation to anything that actually happened that it would take all night to highlight each individual inconsistency...

There is a good rule in science. You can confirm something as many times as you like but you can never say it is absolutely positively true. It only takes one fact, however, to say it is absolutely positively false.

(Thus we can watch the sun rise millions of times in the morning, but never say 100% that it will always do so - and indeed it is certain that one 'day' it won't).

 

Thank you for taking the time to write this out, even if briefly. However, there are many assumptions here that aren't Biblical, many statements that aren't Biblical, and statements that assume that some facts mentioned are absolute but are later contradicted by other statements. I will go through them all now and point these things out explicitly.

 

---

 

1. Chronology. BB is 13,7 billion years ago. Earth is 4.55 billion years old. The Genesis account cannot, whatever interval you assume between 'days' accomodate that basic ratio of times.

 

I will start off by stating the parts that contradict themselves inherently. "BB," Big Bang i presume (you'll have to correct me here if i assumed falsely). 13.7 billion years ago is an obvious estimate, but cannot be absolutely proven; the age of the Earth has at least the same credibility as the estimate of the time passed since the Big Bang, and so cannot be absolutely proven. Either way, these two "facts" are irrelevant to the Biblical account and your argument; mentioning them and not mentioning them will yield the same conclusion (as the the chronological summary of Genesis 1 that you post are not dependent on these two things). You might argue that you did not mention that they were absolute facts, but the way you stated them shows that you find them to be undeniable, which is on the same grounds as believing them to be absolutely true.

 

2. A brief summary of genesis in chronological order gives us:

Day 1 Creation of Day and Night

Day 2 Creation of Heaven

Day 3 Creation of the Earth, the Seas, and the Plants

Day 4 Creation of the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars

Day 5 Creation of Fishes and Birds [beginning of Sexual Reproduction]

Day 6 Creation of Land Animals (Cattle, Insects, Reptiles, Man)

It does not take a genius to realise that day and night are effects of the earth spinning around an axis whilst orbiting the sun, and therefore to talk of day and night on day 1 is nonsensical.

Your summary is actually not Biblical. It is obvious by your statement that you believe that "day" and "night" is the same measurement of time that humans today use (i.e. the earth spinning on its axis). But do i even have to show you the Biblical account in order to show you that this is illogical to assume by your own summary? You say "day" and "night" is measured by the earth rotating on its axis. Tell me, how can you claim such a thing when you state that the earth, the sun and the moon did not come into existence until the third and fourth day? You are failing to recognize even your own summary. "Day" and "night" therefore takes on a whole different meaning; it is no longer what you think it is or thought it was. "Day" and "night" are therefore an undetermined length of time. And so by your own summary we have shown that these "days" for each day of creation are not 24-hour days. And so, while it may not require a genius to see that our measurement for "day" and "night" is a 24-hour revolution of the earth, this information is irrelevant, since it has become obvious that it is fallicious to assume our measurement for "day" and "night."

 

But to mention why your summary is not Biblical: "Creation of the Earth, Seas and Plants," the Earth was already in existence since verse 2 of Genesis. The earth, as Biblically mentioned, at that time was a "water world," a world where the only land was under water (as mentioned by the very same verse).

 

Nor does it take much intelligence to Realise that you don't create plants on day 3 and then create their source of energy on day 4 - t'other way around. Then we have the earth and seas and planets before the creation of the sun and moon...nope...that doesn't fly.

Light was already in existence by the time of the plants, or have you forgotten the First Day? Secondly, the word "made" in Genesis 1:16 (Strongs 06213) can also mean "appoint," which would fit perfectly with the verse's context. So it could be the case that God merely appointed the sun and the moon and the stars on the Fourth Day, which would imply that the sun and the moon (and the stars) were already in existence.

 

As for the remainder of your statements:

Then we have a silly appearance of life. Fishes is good - that at least corresponds in a sort of way to reality. But not birds...way WAY too early. They should be on day 6. Of course we know that first life appeared around 3.5 billion years ago and was a small green organism - an algae. This lasted for probably a billion years with nothing else, aside from primitive bateria. Genesis misses out this important step which means non of the rest can work because this period of time is needed to actually put the oxygen into the atmosphere (the earth did not form with an oxygen atmosphere - oxygen is given out by life generally, so you need photosynthesis to have been going for a long long time before you have anything that animals can breathe....

Again more assumptions (that aren't Biblical). "We know," again, merely an estimate. But just like the other estimates, these are irrelevant to the Biblical account of creation. The creatures mentioned in Genesis 1 do not involve creatures of prehistoric existence or anything around their time or earlier. The moment of creation does not deal with those past events. The Bible only mentions what is relative to us. These animals are what you see in existence today. It is false to assume that they mean anything before them. This is one of the reasons why i mentioned that it requires an entire rewrite of Genesis 1 in order to mix something like the theory of evolution in it. You can talk about all the things pre-existing the timeline of Genesis 1, but that is irrelevant.

 

It is true that it does not take a genius to know about the things you have mentioned. However, perhaps if you took the time to see things clearly on how they are and were actually written, you would then see that your preception of Genesis is merely a rewrite of Genesis and hence claim that it is a myth.

[Bikerman 2]

It is impossible for you to state what you have so far stated without implying that the Biblical account of creation is false.

Of course it is false if you apply it literally, just as Shakespeare's plays are false in that sense. I don't take either the bible or Shakespeare literally therefore it doesn't arise.

I will start off by stating the parts that contradict themselves inherently. "BB," Big Bang i presume (you'll have to correct me here if i assumed falsely). 13.7 billion years ago is an obvious estimate, but cannot be absolutely proven; the age of the Earth has at least the same credibility as the estimate of the time passed since the Big Bang, and so cannot be absolutely proven.

Argument from ignorance is a basic fallacy. No fact can be proven absolutely but in so far as we know anything, these estimates are pretty good - to within about 1% either way in the case of the age of the earth and a little more leeway with the BB (+/- 3%)

Either way, these two "facts" are irrelevant to the Biblical account and your argument; mentioning them and not mentioning them will yield the same conclusion (as the the chronological summary of Genesis 1 that you post are not dependent on these two things). You might argue that you did not mention that they were absolute facts, but the way you stated them shows that you find them to be undeniable, which is on the same grounds as believing them to be absolutely true.

They are scientific statements so no belief is necessary. You do the maths and you get the answer. simple.

Your summary is actually not Biblical. It is obvious by your statement that you believe that "day" and "night" is the same measurement of time that humans today use (i.e. the earth spinning on its axis). But do i even have to show you the Biblical account in order to show you that this is illogical to assume by your own summary? You say "day" and "night" is measured by the earth rotating on its axis. Tell me, how can you claim such a thing when you state that the earth, the sun and the moon did not come into existence until the third and fourth day? You are failing to recognize even your own summary. "Day" and "night" therefore takes on a whole different meaning; it is no longer what you think it is or thought it was. "Day" and "night" are therefore an undetermined length of time. And so by your own summary we have shown that these "days" for each day of creation are not 24-hour days. And so, while it may not require a genius to see that our measurement for "day" and "night" is a 24-hour revolution of the earth, this information is irrelevant, since it has become obvious that it is fallicious to assume our measurement for "day" and "night."

Try reading what I wrote. I said at least once that the actual unit of time - expressed in the hebrew as 'yaum' (or Yom) can be any value you like and it still won't work. The same word is used for each of the six time intervals. The Hebrew has perfectly good words for era and epoch so we know that the writer meant to write 6 equal time intervals (Yaum [Yom] normally IS used to mean 'day' but it can mean 'period'). Six uses of the word clearly means 6 equal periods.

No matter how you slice it you cannot come up with 6 periods of time - be it a day or a billion years - which will allow the story to work. It should be:

Day 1 - Universe created.

Day 2....nothing

Day 3....Sun, earth, planets, moon created. Primitive algae appear

Day 4....Multicellular life in the oceans. First plants on land

Day 5....everything else with man coming just short of midnight.

(there would be no days 6&7 because this is as close as it can be done using this model - assuming a day is around 2.5 billion years and allowing a generous margin of error because of the unit system chosen.).

But to mention why your summary is not Biblical: "Creation of the Earth, Seas and Plants," the Earth was already in existence since verse 2 of Genesis. The earth, as Biblically mentioned, at that time was a "water world," a world where the only land was under water (as mentioned by the very same verse).

I was being generous. If you want a more precise account sticking closely to the original Hebrew (or later greek/coptic version) then I can do that as well, but it gets even sillier...

Anyway...let's be generous and go with your interpretation. So we have the earth preceding the sun..(the sun cannot be in existence because all is formless and void at the start and the sun isn't mentioned until later - when I said). If the sun is there then it is light...if not then dark. Simple statement of fact, no interpretation of maths needed....

Light was already in existence by the time of the plants, or have you forgotten the First Day? Secondly, the word "made" in Genesis 1:16 (Strongs 06213) can also mean "appoint," which would fit perfectly with the verse's context. So it could be the case that God merely appointed the sun and the moon and the stars on the Fourth Day, which would imply that the sun and the moon (and the stars) were already in existence.

Nice try. What does appoint mean? To charge with a role, to assign a role. What do the verses actually say?

And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness.

So no, your attempted reinterpretation just doesn't work.

As for the remainder of your statements:

Again more assumptions (that aren't Biblical). "We know," again, merely an estimate. But just like the other estimates, these are irrelevant to the Biblical account of creation. The creatures mentioned in Genesis 1 do not involve creatures of prehistoric existence or anything around their time or earlier. The moment of creation does not deal with those past events. The Bible only mentions what is relative to us. These animals are what you see in existence today. It is false to assume that they mean anything before them. This is one of the reasons why i mentioned that it requires an entire rewrite of Genesis 1 in order to mix something like the theory of evolution in it. You can talk about all the things pre-existing the timeline of Genesis 1, but that is irrelevant.

Err it is you that is inventing things here. Where does Genesis say that 'prehistoric' creatures are excluded? That doesn't even make sense. How can there be a 'prehistory' to the creation? This IS prehistory.

Clearly the notion that Genesis deals with that subset of creatures we see today is simply made up since we are told

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

All the creatures, not a subset which is to be determined empirically at a later date. Even if we allow you to rewrite the verses in this way it simply ignores the objections already raised - that life could not possibly have appeared in that sequence. The fallacy of argumentum ad ignoramntium doesn't really help.

It is true that it does not take a genius to know about the things you have mentioned. However, perhaps if you took the time to see things clearly on how they are and were actually written, you would then see that your preception of Genesis is merely a rewrite of Genesis and hence claim that it is a myth.

 

No rewrite from me, but I suggest you look at your own 'creative interpretations'.... Edited August 21, 2010 by Bikerman (see edit history)

[truefusion 3]

Of course it is false if you apply it literally, just as Shakespeare's plays are false in that sense. I don't take either the bible or Shakespeare literally therefore it doesn't arise.

I am applying it literally, taking it to its core even (the Hebrew language), and deriving the conclusion i have so provided. And it makes sense. But if you are going to try and state an analogy, at least pick one that relates on equal grounds to the Biblical account of creation. Here is the difference between the intentions of the authors between Shakespeare and Genesis: Shakespeare intented his work as fiction, but the Bible is intended as truth. If you cannot provide an example whose work is intended as truth, then you are mentioning things that are irrelevant and not worth mentioning.

They are scientific statements so no belief is necessary. You do the maths and you get the answer. simple.

No statement was mentioned that said belief was required, at least from me. Regardless, this doesn't change the fact that the scientific statements you mentioned are irrelevant.

Try reading what I wrote. I said at least once that the actual unit of time - expressed in the hebrew as 'yaum' (or Yom) can be any value you like and it still won't work. The same word is used for each of the six time intervals. The Hebrew has perfectly good words for era and epoch so we know that the writer meant to write 6 equal time intervals (Yaum [Yom] normally IS used to mean 'day' but it can mean 'period'). Six uses of the word clearly means 6 equal periods.

I did read it, and it is not Biblically accurate. The only way to claim that these 6 periods of time are equal in length is to know just how long each period is. You do not know such a thing, and it is impossible to derive that from the Bible alone. For that reason it is illogical to state that these 6 different periods of time are equal in length. To make such an assumption and then state it cannot be true is merely a straw man on your part. Simply having the same word repeated does not mean that they are all of equal length, especially since the First Day introduced "day" and "night" without any explicitly defined value for each. One of the things that helps understand Scripture is context. For that reason, if the concept of night and day is to be assumed for the other 5 Days, then we are to use the First Day as reference.

No matter how you slice it you cannot come up with 6 periods of time - be it a day or a billion years - which will allow the story to work. It should be:Day 1 - Universe created.
Day 2....nothing
Day 3....Sun, earth, planets, moon created. Primitive algae appear
Day 4....Multicellular life in the oceans. First plants on land
Day 5....everything else with man coming just short of midnight.
(there would be no days 6&7 because this is as close as it can be done using this model - assuming a day is around 2.5 billion years and allowing a generous margin of error because of the unit system chosen.).

There is no need to change the creation account of Genesis 1, it works fine the way it is, as can be seen from what i have been mentioning.

Anyway...let's be generous and go with your interpretation. So we have the earth preceding the sun..(the sun cannot be in existence because all is formless and void at the start and the sun isn't mentioned until later - when I said). If the sun is there then it is light...if not then dark. Simple statement of fact, no interpretation of maths needed....

The only thing that the Bible mentions in the creation account that was formless and void was the Earth. Nothing else is stated to be formless and void. The sun is not required for there to be light and darkness (as implied by the First Day); no math is required for either. Nevertheless, your own statement would mean that when God on the First Day caused light to be, that all the stars in the universe were created. But that is not Biblical, as you show in your next statement in your post.

Err it is you that is inventing things here. Where does Genesis say that 'prehistoric' creatures are excluded? That doesn't even make sense. How can there be a 'prehistory' to the creation? This IS prehistory.
Clearly the notion that Genesis deals with that subset of creatures we see today is simply made up since we are told All the creatures, not a subset which is to be determined empirically at a later date. Even if we allow you to rewrite the verses in this way it simply ignores the objections already raised - that life could not possibly have appeared in that sequence. The fallacy of argumentum ad ignoramntium doesn't really help.

The same question but in reverse can be asked to you: Where does it say that they are included? "All creatures" does not imply every single living creature to have ever existed. You even state that it is illogical if prehistoric creatures were included, so how then can you derive that they are included? Fortunately, it doesn't, because the Bible only mentions what is relative to us, only things that concern us. If you require reading the remainder of the Bible to see that it only mentions what concerns us, then you may do so.

Life could not be formed that way if you assume a form of creation other than what can be derived from life. Logically, it could easily be formed that way. Even if we consider prehistoric creatures, these prehistoric events would have occurred before the "water world." The only reason why you say it could not have happened is because perhaps you believe in common ancestry. However, from a Biblical point of view, there are many ways to explain similarities in design patterns of creation. Each "era" that shows some form of "evolutionary scale" could again be more instances of recreation that have merely died out to make room for new creations. That is, the Biblical account would tell of the final form of recreation and a new era (unless God so chooses to create again).

The only thing that would complicate this theory is the Fourth Day. That is, why would the entire surrounding environment of the Earth have to be rebuilt, so to speak? It would be the fastest way to annihilate existence, and it would follow from the heavens folding like a book. While it may be seen as an exaggerated way to cease creation, it nevertheless consistently follows Biblically. Notice that the Earth is in existence in Genesis 1:2 though there is no mention of it being caused into existence except from what can be derived from Genesis 1:1. This implies that if and when any previous eras ceased to exist, the Earth remained in existence (though the rest of the universe ceases to exist).

And so we have a seemingly repetitive form of creation that may cease entirely with this era. Since the Earth survived previous existences, this allowed for the fossils you see here today. It is not surprising that God would use similar patterns in later designs, He is a Creator after all. Likewise, it is not surprising to see consistency in the way He does things. None of what i have mentioned in this requires a rewrite of Genesis and some of the information requires extra Biblical reading to even derive, and it fits within our perception of reality.

No rewrite from me, but I suggest you look at your own 'creative interpretations'....

There is no need for me to look at my own interpretation when you are doing that for me.