Poll: Would you prefer being out of nothing, or being made out of clay?
Nothing
Clay
[Show Results]
 
Question for creationists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-06-2012, 03:32 PM
RE: Question for creationists
(12-06-2012 05:16 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  
(11-06-2012 08:31 PM)greenjelly Wrote:  wow, never heard that before. Is that the ultimate sub-conscious acceptance of evolution?
Ever since the majority of the public started accepting that science held the best answers to our questions, Christians have tried to explain everything they can with science. Of course when science fails, that's when they fall back on supernatural explanations.
*That* is a nice insight Smile Yay! Learned something today.

Edit: when science fails? Or when it's not applicable? 'Cos it's almost engineered against failure. The worst case answer is "more research needed"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2012, 05:11 AM
RE: Question for creationists
(11-06-2012 11:45 AM)greenjelly Wrote:  Genesis 2:7 says God made man out of "the dust of the ground" (commonly referred to as "made man out of clay")

And in Job 1:7 god is questioning satan about his whereabouts, and he goes "in the earth." So that being made outta "dust and breath" is to be made outta good and evil.

[Image: 10289811_592837817482059_8815379025397103823_n.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
15-06-2012, 05:13 AM
RE: Question for creationists
(13-06-2012 03:32 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(12-06-2012 05:16 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  Ever since the majority of the public started accepting that science held the best answers to our questions, Christians have tried to explain everything they can with science. Of course when science fails, that's when they fall back on supernatural explanations.
*That* is a nice insight Smile Yay! Learned something today.

Edit: when science fails? Or when it's not applicable? 'Cos it's almost engineered against failure. The worst case answer is "more research needed"
Yeah, "more research needed" is congruent to "when science fails." Thumbsup

[Image: 10289811_592837817482059_8815379025397103823_n.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2012, 11:46 PM
RE: Question for creationists
I always figured the "man made from earth" bit was a holdover from a much older human origin myth. I can't be arsed at the moment to re-do the research for specifics, but some South and Central American civilizations and I believe some ancient Mediterranean ones had man being created in various ways from earths elements.

If I recall correctly, four different times in four different ways is a fairly common take on it, which unfailingly uses clay or earth or something of that ilk during one of the attempts. That version is us of course. I'll look stuff up if anyone is interested, but my main point is that man being made of the dust of the earth is freaking OLD.

Man has also been made of corn, fire, wind, water, wood, sand, gold, and silver. I'd really have to do some serious tracking down to find where I learned all these from, and which lores they belong to, haha. Just kind of trivia that has been tucked away in the back of my mind.

Blog? Blog!
Current Topics:
Zelda remakes!
Awesome Orcadian Folklore!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes AdaMiSt's post
16-06-2012, 09:04 AM
RE: Question for creationists
I ain't made of that stuff. I'm made up of I love my Gwynnies! Heart

That fucking girl... one of these days, I'm gonna get all spun up and go find her. And she'll smile at me. And my head will explode. And that'll be that. Big Grin

Question for Creationists:


[Image: funny-captions-why-you-so-stupid.jpg]

[Image: 10289811_592837817482059_8815379025397103823_n.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
16-06-2012, 09:38 AM
RE: Question for creationists
Hello GJ, nice to meet you, and as a YEC I will do my best to answer the questions which come before your question at the end. As they may have more relevance than that question.

(11-06-2012 11:45 AM)greenjelly Wrote:  Genesis 2:7 says God made man out of "the dust of the ground" (commonly referred to as "made man out of clay")

There is a lot here to look at before jumping to "commonly referred to as made man out of clay."

First, take a look at the word dust (`aphar ), which we are told God fashioned man from. It is translated a number of ways:

AV — dust 93, earth 7, powder 3, rubbish 2, ashes 2, morter 2, ground 1

Let's take a look at this word where it is translated "morter" (mortar/plaster):


Leviticus 14:42-45

King James Version (KJV)

42 And they shall take other stones, and put them in the place of those stones; and he shall take other morter, and shall plaister the house.

43 And if the plague come again, and break out in the house, after that he hath taken away the stones, and after he hath scraped the house, and after it is plaistered;

44 Then the priest shall come and look, and, behold, if the plague be spread in the house, it is a fretting leprosy in the house; it is unclean.

45 And he shall break down the house, the stones of it, and the timber (thereof, and all the) morter of the house; and he shall carry them forth out of the city into an unclean place.



And I thought the inspectors I deal with were tough...lol.

Okay, the first thing I would point out concerning God's fashioning of man from pre-existing material is to look at the word used, find out it's meaning, and the biblical usage, which in many cases is going to help us not to limit a word to a single definition or concept. Similarly, the word "heaven" in scripture has to be identified as to the intent of the context, as it has varied meaning in scripture.


So when we look at the statement...

quote='greenjelly' pid='124353' dateline='1339436724']
Genesis 2:7 says God made man out of "the dust of the ground" (commonly referred to as "made man out of clay")
[/quote]

...the implication is that "dust" means "dry powder" such as that which accumulates in our homes, which we are continuously cleaning up. Added to that is the statement that this is "commonly referred to as man made out of clay," to which we must answer the question: commonly referrred to...by who?

The answer is, those that take dust and clay to be the actual elements used to fashion man, as though we can take common ordinary dust or clay and find an exact chemical composition which would match that God used in fashioning man. That is problematic for a number of reasons, but I will just focus on the issue of forcing a definition upon the word that was never meant to do anything but present the fact that the Lord fashioned man out of the materials He had previously created, which, are still found in creation today.

In a nutshell, man was created from material found in nature, and it is not to be limited to common household dust, which though it may contain some or even all of the chemicals of man's make-up, doesn't mean that the two are equal in their own particular make-up.


(11-06-2012 11:45 AM)greenjelly Wrote:  Why did God first make clay out of nothing, and then make man out of clay?

It is my personal belief that God created all existing material found in the universe...out of nothing. Then, He fashioned many things from that material.

What is unique about man's composition is that unlike the animals, birds, and sea creatures, we are told the "God breathed the breath of life into man, and man became a living soul." And while "spirit" is used in a number of ways in scripture, "life" is one which would have application here.

We know that animals, birds, and sea creatures have "life," so what is significant about man" If he is made of the same material as other living creatures...what makes him so special? The answer would be that of that which was created, only man is said to be made in God's likeness and image.

So the answer to this question would seem on the surface to be fairly easy to understand, first, God created everything out of nothing, then fashioned many things from that existing material. We believe that God, and only God, can do this. Man has accomplished great things by working with the material God created, but, he cannot create something from nothing. Secondly, the fact that God made man from the existing material has little bearing on the issue for anyone that does not take the approach that scripture is teaching that God made man from something we cannot verify through science. It is when the "dust" is incorrectly viewed to be common everyday dust, rather than a reference to the earth's materials, that one might get the idea that they can sweep their house, or dig up some garden soil, do an scientific examination of the specimen and say, "Viola! I have just proven scripture wrong! This specimen is lacking 20 of the elements of man's composition!"

An illustration I would give would be found in a book I read as a kid. I believe it was called "Prince Ombra" (thought it was a pretty good book). In it, there is presented a "Good versus Evil" drama, pretty basic, really, but one thing that fascinated me in this book was the author's spin on "The Sword in the Stone." You know, of Arthurian fame. Rather than a literal sword protruding from a rock, he explained it as the actual mineral content of rock, the power of Arthur not coming from pulling a literal sword out of a rock (as disney so wonderfully illustrates) but of the extraction of the minerals taken from the earth in order to produce iron, in order to produce weapons, hence...his power was in the ability to produce weaponry to build an armed force which was more powerful than his enemies.

If we apply this same principle to man's creation, we do not look at it as a matter of scripture being ignorant of the actual composition of man, but, it is a general description that in fact cannot be refuted, but in fact is verified by what we know through science today.

(11-06-2012 11:45 AM)greenjelly Wrote:  Why not make man out of nothing, like everything else he created?

That is basically...what He did. If I grow an apple tree (and this is a poor example I admit) I can take something that I did not have, which would be the tree, to begin with, and in a limited sense I have "made" an apple tree in my yard. I can then, when this tree begins producing fruit, take the materials of that tree and "make" a number of things: a fresh apple, an apple pie, apple sauce, apple juice...you get the idea. We would recognize the difference between apple pie and apple juice, and call them different "creations," yet we also know that they contain the same "ingredients." Now expand that concept to creation, meaning the existing universe, and we could break that apple tree down and separate the "ingredients" and "fashion" many different things that would have no visible relationship. For instance, I can take wood from an apple tree, build a fire, cook the apples, then eat my product with a spoon, also carved from apple wood.

As I said, this does not cover the complexity of creation, but I think it serves as a simple illustration as to how the same materials can be used to form diverse results.

(11-06-2012 11:45 AM)greenjelly Wrote:  And then there's the thing with the rib...

Again, we see a fashioning from pre-existing material, this time, presumably, from material that is living, the significant factor being that this living material was not just pre-existing material, but has the distinction of being "material" in which the "breath of life" had been inserted, and this material standing out uniquely as coming from a living soul. Technology allows us today to take living material from a body, and insert it successfully into another, and it will live. However, the personality of the person it is taken from is not, nor can be by science...transferred. Nor can science create that unique distinction which places man apart from animals, that is, "what is commonly called a soul" (lol).

This is an indication of man's unique design which science is incapable of creating. Research in AI is an amazing effort, in my estimation, but, I don't think any of us would seriously consider the concept found in "I, Robot," for instance, to be a true possibility. Of course, this is my perspective, and there are those that rather than see the awesome nature of man, actually limit it below scripture's view, thereby making AI a possibility...because man is just the product of chemistry, and should not be viewed in the unique light scripture places him. The notion of man having a "soul" is ridiculous, he is, after all...no different than the animals.

(11-06-2012 11:45 AM)greenjelly Wrote:  But wait.. I know 'God works in mysterious ways', so that is not my question to you.

This is true, but like many misconceptions about God and that which He has revealed to man, God has not revealed Himself to man and then made it impossible for him to understand that which He chose to reveal. Knowledge of God is treated like a mystery novel...and God has kept the last chapter to Himself. While it is true that the revelation God has accorded us has been given in a manner of progression, similar to our methods of teaching children where we begin with basic knowledge and progressively increase understanding by additional information. It also equally true that while we can understand all that God has revealed, this does not mean that God has revealed all there is to know. As in the example given in the scripture above, instruction on how to prevent the spread of infectious disease was given without the need to give complex detail as to what was causing the disease. Parents often instruct their children without feeling the need to give explicit understanding. For instance: "Don't talk to strangers." Do we get in-depth with a four year-old about why they should not talk to strangers? No, most do not. And while this young child may be capable of understanding the reasons we tell them not to talk to strangers, it is common to simply give the instruction, and leave it at that.

(11-06-2012 11:45 AM)greenjelly Wrote:  My question is:
What would you have preferred? Being made out of nothing, or being made out of clay?

An example of "making something out of nothing" apart from the known universe would perhaps be Angels. Angels are spirit beings, and thier existance could be viewed as foreign to the physical universe. They were in my opinion (and I want to stress this is merely my view) created to exist in the spiritual plane, rather than the physical, as man was. Kind of like fish were created to live in water, whereas man was not. Take one out of their environment without the methods that we can today employ, such as man in water for extended time, and both will die. Where the illustration breaks down is that man is not capable, at least to our knowledge, to actually enter the spiritual realm, whereas spirit beings such as Angels, can. And similar to man's ability to enter water, to do research, for example, or, a fish can be seen to live outside of water for sometimes amazing lengths of time, it is possible for man to perhaps have short visits, but again, he is not suitable for the environment.

Now we look at man's composition, and if we allow a spiritual aspect which has been for some reason limited through some process, we see that the "material" may be there (though we cannot identify it through scientific process), but it is not functional. The process many believers see as the cause of this "brokenness" is the separation from God which resulted through disobedience. Now I am not implying that man had the capability to cross over from the physical realm to the spiritual, as we see Angels do, we just do not have enough to draw a conclusion. But, keeping in mind that Angels are spirit, and while we see examples of them appearing in physical bodies (see Gen. 18), they, which I view to in all probability to be a product of "being made out of nothing," we would conclude that while a spirit can travel between the two realms, the physical cannot.

And to try (lol) to bring this to a conclusion that at least in the framework of my belief and the information we do have in scripture, makes a little sense, my answer to the question would be...I am very glad to have been "made from existing material" (for Adam was fashioned from the dust, his descendants as well as Eve were fashioned from material already given a composition, both physically and spiritually quite different from Adam) for the simple fact that while I do not fully understand the process God determined to create the ultimate goal of creation itself, which is, man glorified in an eternal "body," I can realize that whatever His intention, is will certainly be an awesome result.

The resurrected body which scripture teaches will be the final stage of the creation process, which, like man in his original form (though perhaps a lesser form), will be both physical and spiritual, it is an awesome thought that at that time the mysteries which science hopes to unlock, like interdimensional travel for instance, will be possible.

Okay, sorry for the length, but it has been enjoyable.

GTY
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes S.T. Ranger's post
16-06-2012, 11:45 AM (This post was last modified: 16-06-2012 01:14 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Question for creationists
When the Enumh Elish was discovered in the Royal Library at Ashurbanipal, by archaelologists, and dated to 1750 BCE, there was, as yet NO evidence of monotheism in human history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashurbanipal .

Yahweh Sabaoth, (the Lord of Hosts, or god of the armies), was one of the gods that Hebrew culture recognized, in their multi-god pantheon. The original Covenant with this god, was, that the Hebrew people would limit their worship to this one of the available gods, in order to obtain his favor in their battles, with the neighboring city-states, in their expansionary land adventures. They justified the expansion to themselves, by telling themselves, that the land was "promised" to them by their god, and granted to them as a national birthright, thus justifying murder, and violence in their actions, to expand their original small petty "kingdom". The Deuteronomic Code imposed strict monolaterism, not monotheism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monolatrism . Monolaterism appears to have arisen in Egypt prior to, or concurrently with this date in Ancient Sumeria, but was short lived. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aten .

With the national crisis which arose in Hebrew culture with the defeat of the kingdom by the Assyrians, around 575 BCE, and the Babylonian Exile, in an effort to unify the survivors, the many oral traditions, which are well recognized by almost all bible scholars, (J,E,P,D,R,K, and others) were first written down, (and there is no evidence of ANY written text of any part of any the texts which today have come to be called the "bible" prior to this date, anywhere on the planet Earth).

One of the original versions of the creation myth which was adopted, and placed into one of the original versions of Genesis, had as the original woman, a female who was called Lilith. She also was created from the mud of the ground, as was the man, but, since her equality became an issue for men who wanted women to be subserviant, (as Saul of Taursus, and Thomas Aquinas continued to insist in the history of Christianity), Lilith was dropped and replaced with Eve, (taken from the rib of "the man"..Adam).

Therefore, I could give a shit, what you make me out of, when you cook up a myth, as long as it's not from Chili's.
And if you think it doesn't matter, think again.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/...fact_mayer

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things" (KJV)

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
16-06-2012, 07:56 PM (This post was last modified: 16-06-2012 07:59 PM by Starcrash.)
RE: Question for creationists
(16-06-2012 09:38 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  
(11-06-2012 11:45 AM)greenjelly Wrote:  Genesis 2:7 says God made man out of "the dust of the ground" (commonly referred to as "made man out of clay")

There is a lot here to look at before jumping to "commonly referred to as made man out of clay."

First, take a look at the word dust (`aphar )...

Oh, you Christians crack me up. Whenever something doesn't seem to work in the obvious context, you try to change the wording to fit your conclusion.

The bible isn't meant to be untranslated and then re-translated. If God was actually involved in the process of bible-writing and bible-transcription, then it should read in a way that someone without access to the original language and manuscripts (such as a tribal person in a 3rd-world country) can still understand it. The humor is compounded when you realize that Christians believe that the problems in translation actually originated with God in an attempt to stop the Tower of Babel from being constructed (besides the fact that an all-powerful God could've made a world in which language was truly universal to begin with).

Even if we are to assume that you're right and the translation isn't what it appears to be from a common-sense perspective, then the problem lies with God's inability to get across the concepts that he meant to get across.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Starcrash's post
17-06-2012, 12:50 AM
RE: Question for creationists
Wow. Let's look at the word "ST." Obviously, that stands for "stupid theist." Tongue

I didn't know you were YEC. That's YUK. I don't like you no morez. Big Grin

[Image: 10289811_592837817482059_8815379025397103823_n.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-06-2012, 07:36 AM
RE: Question for creationists
(16-06-2012 09:38 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  In a nutshell, man was created from material found in nature, and it is not to be limited to common household dust, which though it may contain some or even all of the chemicals of man's make-up, doesn't mean that the two are equal in their own particular make-up.

Was the material "monkeys"?

Ok, I'll get back in my box now.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Hafnof's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: