Christian Doctrine
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-12-2016, 01:05 PM
RE: Christian Doctrine
Quote:
The Bible speaks about decay.
Radioactive decay?
Where....specifically?

Not necessarily radioactive decay.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2016, 01:09 PM
RE: Christian Doctrine
Quote:
The time between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 could be 9 billions years. Gen 1 speaks about the universe and Gen 2 speaks about the Earth.

Genesis 1 talks about earth; genesis 2 talks about the same things being created but in a different order.

Scholars I have read say that the Gen 2 account is the account of the Garden of Eden. I will have to look for that, I don't have it at my fingertips.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2016, 01:10 PM
RE: Christian Doctrine
(20-12-2016 12:42 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(20-12-2016 12:35 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  Well, then I should just go.

Um. I am answering you honestly. You are trying to convince me, which as far as I'm concerned means you've declared "Duck shooting season is now open! By the way, I am a duck." But I am genuinely interested in what you have to say. I do consider though, that anyone who takes part in evangelism should be well aware that they may receive some counters that may shake them up themselves.

Thanks for the warning. " Better men than you..."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2016, 01:14 PM
RE: Christian Doctrine
(20-12-2016 12:59 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(20-12-2016 12:49 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  Show us a case in which
1) the bible was interpreted first
2) a very specific and falsifiable prediction was made based on that interpretation
3) and later science discovered this very fact

Heb 11:3
By faith we understand that the entire universe was formed at God's command, that what we now see did not come from anything that can be seen.
Created from nothing.
Job 9:8
Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea.
Jer 10:12
He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion.
Isa 45:12
I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.

Universe expanding

... That's kinda vague tbh. It roughly aligns with big bang theory to be fair, but... it's not really that convincing. Plus you had to draw those verses from all over the place. Why doesn't Genesis 1:1 say "God created the universe from a very small thing, which he caused to explode, it exploded and expanded to become the universe that we know today. The early universe was extremely hot and could not support life. After some time it cooled and the first stars formed. They formed because of the influence of gravity, and attractive force which pulls all matter together with all other matter. Stars are those points of light in the night sky. They look small but that's really because they're extremely far away. In reality they are huge furnaces. The Sun is a close by star to Earth, and Earth circles the Sun because of the influence of gravity and also as a result of the formation process of the Solar System."

This is a perfectly fine Genesis myth which is also scientifically accurate. If this was what was written in Genesis I would have no choice but to conclude that those ancient Hebrews really knew their shit. Maybe even were told their shit by a super awesome deity. As it is you've got to reach and stretch and find verses that agree with you and ignore verses that don't - like the "big light and lesser light in the sky" of Genesis which clearly to me show that the Hebrews had zero clue that the Sun was a hefty great big ball of gas.

The Bible is not meant to be a science text. Job was written earlier than Genesis. Job gives us some detail. That detail was not repeated in Genesis.

For you information read about how finely tuned the expansion rate of the universe had to be to form stars and have gravity.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2016, 01:17 PM
RE: Christian Doctrine
(20-12-2016 01:14 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  The Bible is not meant to be a science text.

What was it meant to be? And why if it wasn't are you trying to make science fit with it?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
20-12-2016, 01:18 PM
RE: Christian Doctrine
(20-12-2016 01:02 PM)Impulse Wrote:  Others already addressed most of your post, but I wanted to add this:

(20-12-2016 12:11 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  Plant life was before animals in the Bible as science has determined.
Yes... (Genesis 1:11-12, Genesis 1:26-27)
And no... (Genesis 2:4-9)

(Somewhere else you also claimed the bible doesn't contain contradictions.)

Gen 2 is the Garden of Eden.
Your citations of Gen 1 are vague. Post them and evaluate them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2016, 01:18 PM
RE: Christian Doctrine
(20-12-2016 01:04 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  morondog wrote: I am quite happy that it is settled in your mind, but you are attempting to convince me of the truth of it So the specific question that I have really is:
if the primary reason for belief is the Bible, why should I believe the Bible?

I am telling you. First: the creation account in the Bible agrees with the natural account. Because the two concur that gives credibility. Just a piece of evidence for trusting the Bible.

No, they "agree" if you really stretch. I don't find that they agree at all.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2016, 01:20 PM
RE: Christian Doctrine
(20-12-2016 01:17 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(20-12-2016 01:14 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  The Bible is not meant to be a science text.

What was it meant to be? And why if it wasn't are you trying to make science fit with it?

Come on. I am not trying to make science fit with it.
Science, in my humble opinion and what it started out to be, was a way to understand God.
The better the science the more it proves God.

The Bible is a way for us to know God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bzltyr's post
20-12-2016, 01:21 PM
RE: Christian Doctrine
(20-12-2016 01:09 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  Quote:
The time between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 could be 9 billions years. Gen 1 speaks about the universe and Gen 2 speaks about the Earth.

Genesis 1 talks about earth; genesis 2 talks about the same things being created but in a different order.

Scholars I have read say that the Gen 2 account is the account of the Garden of Eden. I will have to look for that, I don't have it at my fingertips.

Genesis 2 does focus on the Eden myth but that is avoiding the point. Your claim was that Genesis 1 talked about the universe and Genesis 2 about the earth. Simply reading the text will show that to be wrong.

(1:10) And God called the dry [land] Earth ; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas : and God saw that [it was] good.
(1:11) And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth : and it was so.
(1:20) And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
(1:24) And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind : and it was so.
(1:27) So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Genesis 1 is clearly talking about the earth. It has land plants (including trees), then sea life, then land animals, then man and woman together. Humans were last but trees did not exist on land before sea life existed. The order of events in Genesis 1 is simply wrong.

(2:5) And no plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground;
(2:6) but there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
(2:7) And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
(2:15) And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
(2:18) And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
(2:19) And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto the man to see what he would call them: and whatsoever the man called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
(2:20) And the man gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for man there was not found an help meet for him.

Genesis 2 has land plants after a mist that came up from the land, then man alone. He then tried to see if the man wanted to partner with any other animal before deciding to create women. The sequence is different, and worse, than Genesis 1.

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
20-12-2016, 01:21 PM
RE: Christian Doctrine
(20-12-2016 01:04 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  morondog wrote: I am quite happy that it is settled in your mind, but you are attempting to convince me of the truth of it So the specific question that I have really is:
if the primary reason for belief is the Bible, why should I believe the Bible?

I am telling you. First: the creation account in the Bible agrees with the natural account. Because the two concur that gives credibility. Just a piece of evidence for trusting the Bible.

The hell you say?

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like kingschosen's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: