Bible's view of the cosmos: flat earth, moving sun. People actually buy into this?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-11-2015, 11:38 AM
RE: Bible's view of the cosmos: flat earth, moving sun. People actually buy into this?
(09-11-2015 11:36 AM)jason_delisle Wrote:  Well. How long was a day before the creation of the sun? How long is there between gen 1:1 and gen 1:2?

If any part of it can mean anything you want, what's the point of any of it?

If your latter-day "reinterpretation" consists of shoehorning non-literal interpretations into whatever gaps modern science has yet to close, what's the point of any of it?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
09-11-2015, 11:52 AM
RE: Bible's view of the cosmos: flat earth, moving sun. People actually buy into this?
(09-11-2015 11:32 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(09-11-2015 11:17 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  What's in the wrong order? Pretty sure what your gonna say but I would rather not assume.

Pretty much all of it, where it isn't physically illiterate to boot.

The sun, moon, and stars after the Earth itself?
Grasses and fruits before animals (hint: these are Cretacean) - let alone any plants before animals, given that primordial life was neither, and let alone any plants before the sun?
Let alone the contradictions between chapters one and two?

The whole thing is idiotic. Seen strictly as primitive myth-making, it's fine for what it is. As anything more than that it requires a degree of cognitive dissonance and intellectual acrobatics to accept that terrifies the sane observer.

One does, mind, find oneself forced to wonder just what the point of worshipping a book is if you're bound and determined to unilaterally redefine every single word in it to suit your own uniquely special feels anyway. If you merrily and vapidly declare what it's "supposed" to mean, up to and including in direct explicit contradiction to text as written and all real archaeological and linguistic analysis... why bother? Just admit you're making it all up for yourself anyway and move on with your life.
Again earth is matter in the very beginning. Plant life was around prior to more complex life. Evolution, remember? The earth would have been struck into a spin prior to the formation of the moon as we know it. Life at some level would have been possible prior to the state that the earth is in now. Radiation is a form of light and would have been abundant as an after effect of the big bang or "let there be light". Was our sun literally made after earth? No, I highly doubt it. Could simple life of some form been around prior to the earth being placed in the orbit it is in today? Yes.

Never said Genesis was exactly correct in all ways.
It was man's best interpretation of what God had shown them, written within their best comprehension based on their limited knowledge. That doesn't mean that the knowledge of God is limited, just the comprehension of man due to their attempts to conform the word of God to their understanding.

So no, it's not all dead on accurate. I was stating that it is a very good description based on know knowledge by the hand of man and limited interpretation of the things and workings of God. It is quite insightful for people who had no clue about the things science has shown us.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-11-2015, 11:54 AM
RE: Bible's view of the cosmos: flat earth, moving sun. People actually buy into this?
(09-11-2015 11:37 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(09-11-2015 11:23 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  It is quite obvious that things are much older than traditional creationist would have us think. This is evident through science.

You do not get to bleat that it is simply "obvious" and "evident". Literal creationists are incredibly sure that they are simply stating what is "obvious" and "evident".

You have to make actual appeals to actual evidence. Not feels.
I just did. Science. If a creationist insists that scientific fact is wrong then they can be seen as confused to say the least. Not going off of a feel. It's backed by evidence. Not sure what your trying to say.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-11-2015, 11:57 AM
RE: Bible's view of the cosmos: flat earth, moving sun. People actually buy into this?
(09-11-2015 11:38 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(09-11-2015 11:36 AM)jason_delisle Wrote:  Well. How long was a day before the creation of the sun? How long is there between gen 1:1 and gen 1:2?

If any part of it can mean anything you want, what's the point of any of it?

If your latter-day "reinterpretation" consists of shoehorning non-literal interpretations into whatever gaps modern science has yet to close, what's the point of any of it?
Who said it can mean anything you want? Different interpretation of some parts like the creation account can be expected. That doesn't mean I can justifiably claim that light and dark weren't divided, or that man doesn't have dominion over the earth.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-11-2015, 12:02 PM
Bible's view of the cosmos: flat earth, moving sun. People actually buy into this?
(09-11-2015 10:55 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  ... Days represent eons or billions of years in the beginning of the text ...

What was the point of invoking that kind of metaphor? In ordinary communications we only invoke metaphors to some purpose, usually clarity. Muddying up meaning with an arbitrary metaphor is counter-productive, not something anyone would do ON PURPOSE. Least of all some "perfect" deity trying to put across an important point. If the process of creation took aeons, say it took aeons, don't say it took "days".

That it is a pointless metaphor is proven by the fact that it only became a point of confusion AFTER science had found days an inappropriate metric. Prior to those discoveries the days metric did not evoke scrutiny. Prior to those discoveries there was no reason to suppose it was meant metaphorically.

The post hoc rationalization hammer is the most used tool in the religious toolbox, and every time it gets used it rebounds and bangs its users in the head, making them senseless to the futility of their chore. It's funny to watch though. Laugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Airportkid's post
09-11-2015, 12:24 PM
RE: Bible's view of the cosmos: flat earth, moving sun. People actually buy into this?
(09-11-2015 11:11 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Your biased reading comprehension is the source of your unfounded scrutiny.

It is the unbiased reading that shows the numerous problems and the biased reading that is based on unfounded beliefs. When you have to twist the literal text to try to make the beliefs conform with the evidence what you have left is not a guide to anything. Genesis is valuable as literature and as an insight into the minds of the people that compiled it. It is useless as history or science.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
09-11-2015, 12:27 PM
RE: Bible's view of the cosmos: flat earth, moving sun. People actually buy into this?
(09-11-2015 12:02 PM)Airportkid Wrote:  
(09-11-2015 10:55 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  ... Days represent eons or billions of years in the beginning of the text ...

What was the point of invoking that kind of metaphor? In ordinary communications we only invoke metaphors to some purpose, usually clarity. Muddying up meaning with an arbitrary metaphor is counter-productive, not something anyone would do ON PURPOSE. Least of all some "perfect" deity trying to put across an important point. If the process of creation took aeons, say it took aeons, don't say it took "days".

That it is a pointless metaphor is proven by the fact that it only became a point of confusion AFTER science had found days an inappropriate metric. Prior to those discoveries the days metric did not evoke scrutiny. Prior to those discoveries there was no reason to suppose it was meant metaphorically.

The post hoc rationalization hammer is the most used tool in the religious toolbox, and every time it gets used it rebounds and bangs its users in the head, making them senseless to the futility of their chore. It's funny to watch though. Laugh out load

Indeed. As science changes, declare your favourite scriptures to be "obviously" non-literal, and that they must have "always" secretly agreed with whatever science you accept all along.

How compelling.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
09-11-2015, 12:46 PM
RE: Bible's view of the cosmos: flat earth, moving sun. People actually buy into this?
(09-11-2015 12:02 PM)Airportkid Wrote:  
(09-11-2015 10:55 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  ... Days represent eons or billions of years in the beginning of the text ...

What was the point of invoking that kind of metaphor? In ordinary communications we only invoke metaphors to some purpose, usually clarity. Muddying up meaning with an arbitrary metaphor is counter-productive, not something anyone would do ON PURPOSE. Least of all some "perfect" deity trying to put across an important point. If the process of creation took aeons, say it took aeons, don't say it took "days".

That it is a pointless metaphor is proven by the fact that it only became a point of confusion AFTER science had found days an inappropriate metric. Prior to those discoveries the days metric did not evoke scrutiny. Prior to those discoveries there was no reason to suppose it was meant metaphorically.

The post hoc rationalization hammer is the most used tool in the religious toolbox, and every time it gets used it rebounds and bangs its users in the head, making them senseless to the futility of their chore. It's funny to watch though. Laugh out load

APK - you really need to write a book... lol I funny enjoy all of your posts / replies!

**Crickets** -- God
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Tonechaser77's post
09-11-2015, 12:47 PM
RE: Bible's view of the cosmos: flat earth, moving sun. People actually buy into this?
(09-11-2015 10:55 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Let me explain something to you that you apparently haven't grasped up until this point. Days represent eons or billions of years in the beginning of the text.
....because, if they didn't then the account in genesys would be absurd when put against the scientific account.

Therefore, in order to make sense of the bible, we must interpret "days" to mean "eons". Now the problem is solved, now the bible is consistent with science. Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-11-2015, 12:49 PM
RE: Bible's view of the cosmos: flat earth, moving sun. People actually buy into this?
(09-11-2015 12:27 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(09-11-2015 12:02 PM)Airportkid Wrote:  What was the point of invoking that kind of metaphor? In ordinary communications we only invoke metaphors to some purpose, usually clarity. Muddying up meaning with an arbitrary metaphor is counter-productive, not something anyone would do ON PURPOSE. Least of all some "perfect" deity trying to put across an important point. If the process of creation took aeons, say it took aeons, don't say it took "days".

That it is a pointless metaphor is proven by the fact that it only became a point of confusion AFTER science had found days an inappropriate metric. Prior to those discoveries the days metric did not evoke scrutiny. Prior to those discoveries there was no reason to suppose it was meant metaphorically.

The post hoc rationalization hammer is the most used tool in the religious toolbox, and every time it gets used it rebounds and bangs its users in the head, making them senseless to the futility of their chore. It's funny to watch though. Laugh out load

Indeed. As science changes, declare your favourite scriptures to be "obviously" non-literal, and that they must have "always" secretly agreed with whatever science you accept all along.

How compelling.
I have yet to find many justified literal interpretations in scriptures. This pertains to all scripture. The literal parts are those of which it is stated that we are to be selfless, giving and living in all that we do. Not for our benefit, but the benefit of existence. Scripture doesn't follow science. As science brings about evidence it is verified through scripture.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: