The Bible is Mathematically Impossible
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-10-2011, 08:45 AM
RE: The Bible is Mathematically Impossible
(06-10-2011 08:27 PM)nontheocrat Wrote:  Just to throw more gas on the fire, here are another couple of mathematical problems found in the Bible as well.

Hello nontheocrat, and thanks for the kindling.

While I am out of time, I did want to respond, even if briefly for now.

(06-10-2011 08:27 PM)nontheocrat Wrote:  First:
"And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot that were men, beside children." (Exodus 12:37)

This tally includes all of the Tribes of Israel, and most likely those of the mixed multitude.

In the following example given, the tally refers to the Northern Kingdom, "Israel," also called "Ephraim" if memory serves me correctly (and it might not, it has been a while since spending much time in the history books).



(06-10-2011 08:27 PM)nontheocrat Wrote:  "Then he numbered the young men of the princes of the provinces, and they were two hundred and thirty two: and after them he numbered all the people, even all the children of Israel, being seven thousand." (1 Kings 20:15)

Probably a reference to fighting men, not the entirety of all men in general. But, for now, the primary point I would raise is that "Israel" is a reference to the Northern Kingdom (See 1 Kings 12 here if interested), not to all who were Israelites. This will help with the calculations.

(06-10-2011 08:27 PM)nontheocrat Wrote:  So within a couple hundred years the descendents of Israel go from 600,000 men (not counting women and children) to little more than 7000!

I will have to look at it further, but again, most likely this refers to the 7000 fighting men assembled to meet the assault, not all of the men of Israel, such as in Exodus Twelve, before the division of the kingdom.

(06-10-2011 08:27 PM)nontheocrat Wrote:  Yet the narrative of the Old Testament is that they went from bondage in Egypt to the "Land of Milk and Honey" where they prospered greatly.

And they did, until they departed from God. Because of this judgment fell in the form of God's protection being lifted, as well as the conquering itself allowed.

(06-10-2011 08:27 PM)nontheocrat Wrote:  Next:
Ezra 2:2-63 gives a detailed census of various groups coming back from Babylonian captivity. If you add up the numbers listed they total 29,718. However, in verse 64, he gives the total as 42,360.

I have to look at this in more detail, as there are other accounts given that I do not have time to look at now, but I will note one observation from the text in question:

Ezra 2

61And of the children of the priests: the children of Habaiah, the children of Koz, the children of Barzillai; which took a wife of the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite, and was called after their name:


62These sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, but they were not found: therefore were they, as polluted, put from the priesthood.

63And the Tirshatha said unto them, that they should not eat of the most holy things, till there stood up a priest with Urim and with Thummim.

64The whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three hundred and threescore,

Notice the people who were "not found." The reference refers, I believe, of those who could not verify their origin as a part of Israel.

The 1984 NIV translates it this way:


Ezra 2

61 And from among the priests:

The descendants of
Hobaiah, Hakkoz and Barzillai (a man who had married a daughter of Barzillai the Gileadite and was called by that name).
62 These searched for their family records, but they could not find them and so were excluded from the priesthood as unclean. 63 The governor ordered them not to eat any of the most sacred food until there was a priest ministering with the Urim and Thummim.

I will look at this further, and see what I can find.

S.T.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-10-2011, 12:07 PM
RE: The Bible is Mathematically Impossible
First off, just because I don't buy your excuses, doesn't mean I'm being dishonest. I acknowledged that probably a large part of the wealth mentioned went for payment. While I can't be sure that's the case, and that what solomon was talking about wasn't just what was literally going into the temple, it's certainly plausible enough. My counter is simply that that's still a crap ton of iron, bronze, silver and gold. Even taking into account payment, I do not think it's reasonable that the workers were all so well paid as to get the materials down to a manageable amount. But that's a much finer point to argue, and I'm not going to worry more about it. So, let's get to the real meat. The one argument I have never seen addressed by those who believe in a true and accurate bible.

Genesis 1 and 2 both recount creation, although Genesis 2 is more concerned with the story of man than of the story of the physical world.

My first complaint was the creation of the earth before the sun in genesis 1. Modern science understands that the earth was created after the sun (According to wikipedia, 30 million years after the sun). You did not, apparently, attempt to explain this. Although that's probably because you seem to be a creationist. Fine. Move on to my next point, as I don't see a way out for biblical literalists.

Genesis 2 conflicts with Genesis 1 in the order of creation of life (It doesn't concern itself with the creation of the physical universe much, so there's no contradictions there). In Genesis 1, the order of creation of life is...

Land Plants
Fish and Birds (Simultaneously, or at least, one immediately after the other)
Land Animals
Humans

Actually, if it weren't for the birds, and the specifically land-borne plants, this would be fairly accurate. It's still not, but hey, I'm willing to be generous and give the writer points for what might have been an educated guess. Maybe it's co-incidence, but whatever.

Anyway, in Genesis 2, the creation of life is...

Man (It specifically says there were no plants because there was no one to work them)
Plants (God then proceeds to plant the Garden of Eden)
Animals (Presumably all of them, but specifically says "All wild animals and birds of the sky")
Woman

So, in the original, human beings were the last life god created (male and female, created he them). In the second chapter, Man was the first life created, and woman was the last life created. While plants, animals and woman maintain their creation order, man jumps from the end of the line, to the front, and woman is no longer created at the same time as man, with several other creations in between.

My problem is not one of how 'days' can't equal 'millions of years'. While I'm pretty sure the original author meant 'about 24 hours' and not 'an unspecified period of time', it's not a point I'm ever going to make to anyone who believes otherwise.

No, no, no. My problem is one of simple order. Order cannot be interpreted. 'First' is not a metaphor for 'second'. Genesis 1 contradicts current science on the order of creation of several things, including the earth and sun, and birds and land animals, both of which should have their appearances swapped in order. Birds evolved from land animals, and should have appeared at least WITH the land animals, and not the fish. For the biblical literalist, who rejects science, Genesis 2 still contradicts Genesis 1. Man is created before plants and animals in 2, and after plants and animals in 1. Man and woman are created simultaneously (Or at least consecutively) in Genesis 1. In Genesis 2, man and woman are now separated in their creation by all other life.

I don't care what you think day means. I'm willing to go whole hog and say genesis 1 is supposed to be all metaphorical, and by 'creation' it really means 'god directed the evolution of'. I don't think that's the original meaning, but whatever, that's not my point. My point is that, no matter how you interpret it, no matter what you think day means here, no matter what you think created means here, the order is still wrong. Contradicting both science and itself, the Bible can't agree with anything.

I'm not interested in any other justifications of Genesis. Just the order. I'll concede everything else for the sake of this argument. Just explain to me why several events are said to happen the wrong way around.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-10-2011, 02:33 PM
RE: The Bible is Mathematically Impossible
(07-10-2011 12:07 PM)Sines Wrote:  Genesis 2 conflicts with Genesis 1 in the order of creation of life (It doesn't concern itself with the creation of the physical universe much, so there's no contradictions there). In Genesis 1, the order of creation of life is...

Land Plants
Fish and Birds (Simultaneously, or at least, one immediately after the other)
Land Animals
Humans

Actually, if it weren't for the birds, and the specifically land-borne plants, this would be fairly accurate. It's still not, but hey, I'm willing to be generous and give the writer points for what might have been an educated guess. Maybe it's co-incidence, but whatever.

Anyway, in Genesis 2, the creation of life is...

Man (It specifically says there were no plants because there was no one to work them)
Plants (God then proceeds to plant the Garden of Eden)
Animals (Presumably all of them, but specifically says "All wild animals and birds of the sky")
Woman

So, in the original, human beings were the last life god created (male and female, created he them). In the second chapter, Man was the first life created, and woman was the last life created. While plants, animals and woman maintain their creation order, man jumps from the end of the line, to the front, and woman is no longer created at the same time as man, with several other creations in between. . . .

My problem is one of simple order. Order cannot be interpreted. 'First' is not a metaphor for 'second'. Genesis 1 contradicts current science on the order of creation of several things, including the earth and sun, and birds and land animals, both of which should have their appearances swapped in order. Birds evolved from land animals, and should have appeared at least WITH the land animals, and not the fish. For the biblical literalist, who rejects science, Genesis 2 still contradicts Genesis 1. Man is created before plants and animals in 2, and after plants and animals in 1. Man and woman are created simultaneously (Or at least consecutively) in Genesis 1. In Genesis 2, man and woman are now separated in their creation by all other life.

I don't care what you think day means. I'm willing to go whole hog and say genesis 1 is supposed to be all metaphorical, and by 'creation' it really means 'god directed the evolution of'. I don't think that's the original meaning, but whatever, that's not my point. My point is that, no matter how you interpret it, no matter what you think day means here, no matter what you think created means here, the order is still wrong. Contradicting both science and itself, the Bible can't agree with anything.

I'm not interested in any other justifications of Genesis. Just the order. I'll concede everything else for the sake of this argument. Just explain to me why several events are said to happen the wrong way around.

Sines,

Some Biblical literalists have come up with a sneaky and illegitimate way around one of the ordering problems. It has to do with the translation of the Hebrew verb in Gen. 2:8 that means "planted."

As you've noted, in Gen. 2 man is created first, and then--or so it seems--God plants the Garden of Eden. But what if the verb translated as a perfect, i.e. "planted," is actually a pluperfect, "had planted"! Then the ordering problem is (according to them) resolved: God created Adam, but He already had planted Eden! Cute.

Comparing English translations of Gen. 2:8 listed here, out of 24 versions, 20 have "planted" and 4 (NIV, NIRV, TNIV, and RHE) have "had planted."

Problem is, there's no justfication in Hebrew grammar for translating the verb in question as a pluperfect in this context. It's a subterfuge. But it demonstrates that some fundamentalists were troubled by the inconsistency and tried to explain it away.

The literalist mind is nothing if not creative.

Religious disputes are like arguments in a madhouse over which inmate really is Napoleon.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-10-2011, 06:11 PM
RE: The Bible is Mathematically Impossible
(07-10-2011 02:33 PM)cufflink Wrote:  Sines,

Some Biblical literalists have come up with a sneaky and illegitimate way around one of the ordering problems. It has to do with the translation of the Hebrew verb in Gen. 2:8 that means "planted."

As you've noted, in Gen. 2 man is created first, and then--or so it seems--God plants the Garden of Eden. But what if the verb translated as a perfect, i.e. "planted," is actually a pluperfect, "had planted"! Then the ordering problem is (according to them) resolved: God created Adam, but He already had planted Eden! Cute.

Comparing English translations of Gen. 2:8 listed here, out of 24 versions, 20 have "planted" and 4 (NIV, NIRV, TNIV, and RHE) have "had planted."

Problem is, there's no justfication in Hebrew grammar for translating the verb in question as a pluperfect in this context. It's a subterfuge. But it demonstrates that some fundamentalists were troubled by the inconsistency and tried to explain it away.

The literalist mind is nothing if not creative.

Hello Cufflink, while this was not addressed to me, I was curious as to whether I am being sneaky and illegitimate by pointing out the context which destroys the premise of this thread?

As to the commentary here, I will address that in sines post.

S.T.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-10-2011, 10:39 PM (This post was last modified: 07-10-2011 10:45 PM by Sines.)
RE: The Bible is Mathematically Impossible
(07-10-2011 02:33 PM)cufflink Wrote:  As you've noted, in Gen. 2 man is created first, and then--or so it seems--God plants the Garden of Eden. But what if the verb translated as a perfect, i.e. "planted," is actually a pluperfect, "had planted"! Then the ordering problem is (according to them) resolved: God created Adam, but He already had planted Eden! Cute.

Alrighty Mr. Apologist. God HAD planted the garden of eden.

Two problems. First off, this still contradicts the previous verse, which said explicitly that there was no plants, because there was no-one to work them. I can see the out there already though. So let's skip onto the easier one.

God created plants before man, just like in genesis 1. Yay!

So, Genesis 1 reads...

Plants
Fish/Birds
Other Animals
Humans

Now, Genesis 2 reads...

Plants
Man
Animals
Woman

Oh... wait... they still don't match up. Back to the drawing board, I guess.

By the way, is anyone else bothered that the story of Genesis 1 ends 2 or 3 verses into Genesis 2? I mean, seriously, what the hell? Just move the damn verses! It's bad enough that you have two contradictory tales of creation, but can't you at least keep them separate?

Oh, and ST, I already addressed why I think the 'payment' hypothesis is inadequate. The 'expansion' hypothesis, that this material was meant to add on to the original building, in order to increase it's size, is perfectly fine then. While it's possible I might, by reading the verses in question, find reasons to doubt the expansion hypothesis, I don't care enough to check. See? I'm also lazy when it comes to supporting my point! So while I still find plenty of problems with the whole construction of the temple thing (3,300 FOREMEN?! Really?), the original point is not so solidly grounded. There's definitely enough wiggle room for a reasonable explanation. As I said in the original post, I was open to information from surrounding text. Your idea that the material in question was used to pay for the temple's construction was woefully inadequate, for reasons I explain. The idea that the material was donated afterwards, intended for the expansion of the temple, is entirely plausible.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-10-2011, 09:03 AM (This post was last modified: 08-10-2011 12:05 PM by S.T. Ranger.)
RE: The Bible is Mathematically Impossible
[quote='Sines' pid='48360' dateline='1318010868'
First off, just because I don't buy your excuses, doesn't mean I'm being dishonest.
[/quote

Hello Sines, thanks for the response. First, let me say that I do not think this dishonesty is intentional, but I have been very clear in showing that the premise of your thread is in error, as well as the conclusion. This is a good example of taking something out of context. I know this is made a diminutive factor here, but really, it is easily seen.

[quote='Sines' pid='48360' dateline='1318010868' I acknowledged that probably a large part of the wealth mentioned went for payment.

[/quote

Whereas I only offered this as a possibility, because it is a large quantity.

I can tell you specific payments made that can be tied to the construction of the Temple, if you are interested. However, I have just a few minutes, and the redirect is also of great interest to me, so, here we go:

[quote='Sines' pid='48360' dateline='1318010868' While I can't be sure that's the case, and that what solomon was talking about wasn't just what was literally going into the temple, it's certainly plausible enough.
[/quote

Not only plausible, but is in fact...fact. There are specific amounts given concerning the Temple and accompanying items, though I do not think the writer meant to be comprehensive. What David had accumulated was actually added to, for Solomon built more than the Temple.

[quote='Sines' pid='48360' dateline='1318010868'My counter is simply that that's still a crap ton of iron, bronze, silver and gold.
[/quote

It really is.


[quote='Sines' pid='48360' dateline='1318010868'Even taking into account payment, I do not think it's reasonable that the workers were all so well paid as to get the materials down to a manageable amount.
[/quote


I guess it is thought that the construction depleted Kingdom resources? What exactly has that to do with the point I addressed?

[quote='Sines' pid='48360' dateline='1318010868' But that's a much finer point to argue, and I'm not going to worry more about it.
[/quote

Okay, we can let it go.


[quote='Sines' pid='48360' dateline='1318010868'So, let's get to the real meat.
[/quote


*fork in hand* Let's dig in!

[quote='Sines' pid='48360' dateline='1318010868
The one argument I have never seen addressed by those who believe in a true and accurate bible.

Genesis 1 and 2 both recount creation, although Genesis 2 is more concerned with the story of man than of the story of the physical world.
[/quote

I really have a hard time believing that you have spoken with no-one that has addressed this.

Genesis 1 and two do not recount creation as you think. While the ch. 2 account gives a "worms-eye view" as opposed to the "birds-eye view" (so to speak), they are clearly not the same account.

Genesis 1 is an overview of Creation while ch. 2 gives a specific account of man being created in a specific place on the earth. I will get back to this, because I would like to try to keep the different "complaints" together.

[quote='Sines' pid='48360' dateline='1318010868'
My first complaint was the creation of the earth before the sun in genesis 1.
[/quote

I can understand that. When one takes on faith that science trumps an ancient collection of books, they must of course believe that though they have no eyewitnesses of the origin of the earth, theirs is the right belief.

[quote='Sines' pid='48360' dateline='1318010868' Modern science understands that the earth was created after the sun (According to wikipedia, 30 million years after the sun).
[/quote


And they can prove this...how?


[quote='Sines' pid='48360' dateline='1318010868' You did not, apparently, attempt to explain this.
[/quote

Thought I did. God created the earth, then placed the sun moon and stars in the universe. That is how the word reads.

Perhaps there is proof that science is right, and scripture wrong? It would seem that we both have to exert a little faith that our sources are right, though my source admonishes faith, and yours does not.

[quote='Sines' pid='48360' dateline='1318010868'

Although that's probably because you seem to be a creationist. [/quote


lol...did not think that I was so vague as to not clarify that I am indeed a creationist.


[quote='Sines' pid='48360' dateline='1318010868'
Fine. Move on to my next point, as I don't see a way out for biblical literalists.
[/quote

Just to clarify, I look at the text in the literal sense first, then try to determine from the text whether there are other considerations, such as a passage being symbolic. Usually this is easy enough, as we will see indicators such as "It was like (unto). Take Satan being pictured as a serpent, or a dragon, I look at statments like that as symbolic. Earthly Jerusalem is called (symbolically) Sodom and Egypt.

But the creation account, because there is no indicator that it is symbolic, or an analogy or parable, I take as a literal account given through the understanding of man in that day.

Some things, such as creation, we take on faith, though it is not blind faith. Scripture teaches that the creation (the world) itself reveals to man that there is a God, and I believe that. What can be known of God without specific knowledge as found in the progressive revelation of God to man in scripture is imprinted on the hearts of every man and woman. So I view the belief that God is fictional as rather suppressing a truth that we are all born with.

Usually, there are reasons that will surface when this "disbelief" is expressed.

[quote='Sines' pid='48360' dateline='1318010868'
Genesis 2 conflicts with Genesis 1 in the order of creation of life (It doesn't concern itself with the creation of the physical universe much, so there's no contradictions there). In Genesis 1, the order of creation of life is...

Land Plants
Fish and Birds (Simultaneously, or at least, one immediately after the other)
Land Animals
Humans
[/quote

Okay, lets look at the conflict.

The order runs like this:

The earth and light on day one.

The atmosphere on day two.

Dry land, grass, herbs, and fruit trees on day three.

The sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day.

Marine life and birds, land animals and bugs on the fifth day.

And man, on the sixth day.


Genesis Two starts out with the general declaration that God created the earth, and rested on the seventh day. I am sure you are aware that scripture was not written in the chapter and verse form we view it in, but was continuous. Verse 4 is where I would have divided the text, but hey, no one asked my opinion...lol.

Starting in four (and some would say seven), we have a parenthetical account that gives specific reference not just to creation, and the creation of man, but specifically man's placement in the Garden.

I will come back to this in the relevant quote.




[quote='Sines' pid='48360' dateline='1318010868'
Actually, if it weren't for the birds, and the specifically land-borne plants, this would be fairly accurate.
[/quote

Okay.

[quote='Sines' pid='48360' dateline='1318010868'
It's still not, but hey, I'm willing to be generous and give the writer points for what might have been an educated guess. Maybe it's co-incidence, but whatever.
[/quote

Okay.


[quote='Sines' pid='48360' dateline='1318010868'
Anyway, in Genesis 2, the creation of life is...

Man (It specifically says there were no plants because there was no one to work them)
Plants (God then proceeds to plant the Garden of Eden)
Animals (Presumably all of them, but specifically says "All wild animals and birds of the sky")
Woman

So, in the original, human beings were the last life god created (male and female, created he them). In the second chapter, Man was the first life created, and woman was the last life created.
[/quote


This might sound plausible to those who have not read the chapter, and being comfortable in their understanding, will probably never read the chapter, but we can see that when the Garden was formed that man did not precede the plants.

You say:

"Man (It specifically says there were no plants because there was no one to work them)"

I ask: think about that statement. Why would it be said there was no-one to work them if they did not already exist? But the reverse is actually true, if you will just look at it. And if you don't mind, I would just like to reiterate that chapter divisions are not found in the original language, so I will just post the first four verses that it might be seen that this would actually fit better with Ch. One than with that which follows, so please, just bear with me:

Genesis 2
1Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

2And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

3And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.



Now we move into what is an account that centers on man himself, rather than the overview given in ch. 1-2:3:



4These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

This verse can apply forward or back. It is a link, so to speak.


5And 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.


Let's look at your inconsistency again:

"Man (It specifically says there were no plants because there was no one to work them)"

According to how you view the chapter you place man's creation before the plants, though the statement itself does not even present this case.

But if you look at the verse, it clearly states that "every plant...and herb" was already in existence...and there was not a man to till the ground.

That is consistent with ch. One. Right?


6But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

7And 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.


And here we have man being created...after the plants. This inconsistency is found not to be on the part of the written record.


[quote='Sines' pid='48360' dateline='1318010868'
While plants, animals and woman maintain their creation order, man jumps from the end of the line, to the front, and woman is no longer created at the same time as man, with several other creations in between.


Within ch. Two we have statements made that seem to be rearranging the order of creation, however, as we have seen that the order has not changed, as we see that when man is made both plants and animals are present, we still have to wonder at the way certain things are stated. I admit that this would seem confusing at first glance, but when you look at the claims of scripture itself that it is true, and you believe that, you might look at this a second, third, or hundredth time to try to understand the passage.

Let's begin (and I do hope that you will take the time to hear me out, as you have ridiculed something I hold sacred, and it is only fair that you invest the time to hear my view):




7And 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.
[size=large]

Wait, didn't we already hear about this? Of course, in ch 1. However, we did not have the detail we have here, and there are some interesting details to glean.

The first I would mention is that man is formed of the ground. This is stated, I believe, because the first man was formed of the dust of the ground, whereas woman was formed from man. I would also note that man is formed of the dust of the ground, the breath of life is breathed into him, and he becomes (not "receives") a living soul.

What is significant about that is that man is to be distinguished from the animals of this earth. Whereas evolution would have us believe that man evolved from animals, the word of God makes it clear that man is separated from other living creatures.

This is reiterated in v. 19, where, rather than scripture stating that at this time animals are created, it is a statement that is made to establish the significance of the creation of woman.

Genesis 2

19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

20And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.



[size=large]
8And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
[size=large]

Another point to note is that in this account, we have the formation of the Garden, not the creation.

That this is a separate act from the overview in Chapter One can be seen when man falls, and is thrust out of the Garden:

Genesis 3

23Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

24So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.


Now if "The Garden" was a parable or analogous of creation, what we would have is man's expulsion from the earth itself, which might be plausible to Fox Mulder, but can hardly seem reasonable from the text.

So in chapter Two, we assume that when man was created on the sixth day, God prepared the Garden, a specific place meant to be inhabited by man in his beginning days.


[size=large]
9And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
[size=large]

As God had created grass, herbs, and fruit trees in ch. 1, here we see that His formation of more plants and trees is the reasonable view, rather than we are given another account of the third day.

That God was still creating particular variants to those made on the third day can best be seen in the "tree of life" and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Both are specific trees that are found here in the Garden, not across the entire earth. Furthermore, we have inserted into this account that there are particular rivers in this particular area, again narrowing down the location, and setting it apart, that we might know that this is a separate event from the third day.

If this view is taken rather than trying to make this inconsistent with ch. 1, the confusion is easily dispelled.

I will stop there in hopes of a reply, and try not to make this longer than it will already be. I know I am probably going to exceed the "twenty minute" span that is recommended, but discernment will only come from unbiased focus, and is something that all of us should learn.

[quote='Sines' pid='48360' dateline='1318010868'
My problem is not one of how 'days' can't equal 'millions of years'. While I'm pretty sure the original author meant 'about 24 hours' and not 'an unspecified period of time', it's not a point I'm ever going to make to anyone who believes otherwise.

[/quote

That he meant 24 hours seems to me to be a given. The phrase "and the evening and the morning" seems to make that clear.

Some theistic evolutionists view this to be a parable, and view the 24 hours as not being 24 literal hours. I am okay with that. I have to decide for myself on certain things, as do they. Who is right pales in significance to other doctrines that do not give the student an option.


[quote='Sines' pid='48360' dateline='1318010868'
No, no, no. My problem is one of simple order. Order cannot be interpreted.
[/quote


Would you admit that you were wrong about the order found in ch. Two?

I agree that order cannot be interpreted, in the sense that it states what it states, and man's opinion has to take a backseat to the record.


[quote='Sines' pid='48360' dateline='1318010868'
'First' is not a metaphor for 'second'.

[/quote

Agreed.


[quote='Sines' pid='48360' dateline='1318010868'

Genesis 1 contradicts current science on the order of creation of several things, including the earth and sun, and birds and land animals, both of which should have their appearances swapped in order.
[/quote

Would you admit that you have faith that science is right? Science cannot prove that the sun came before the earth.

[quote='Sines' pid='48360' dateline='1318010868'
Birds evolved from land animals, and should have appeared at least WITH the land animals, and not the fish.
[/quote

And you know this because...?


[quote='Sines' pid='48360' dateline='1318010868'
For the biblical literalist, who rejects science,
[/quote

Hold on. Who says all "biblical literalists" reject science? My work involves science at an advanced level (though I admit my personal knowledge is limited to field application). I am grateful to the many scientists that have made improvements that help man. Though I will say that a lot of times what we view as an improvemnet is in a lot of ways not necessarily an improvement to the quality of life. Take for example time-saving devices. Does this mean that man has more time to spend with his family because he can do his work faster? Not really, it just means that man must accomplish more in less time, as well as that the need for manpower is reduced drastically, meaning there are less jobs available. We build huge buildings today with powerful machines that do away with the need for laborers who in the past were a necessity.


[quote='Sines' pid='48360' dateline='1318010868'

Genesis 2 still contradicts Genesis 1. Man is created before plants and animals in 2, and after plants and animals in 1.
[/quote

It does not state that.

That animals were formed is a general statement. Not a sequential account of creation. In chapter two, we see the formation of the Garden...not creation.

That this speaks of a specific location within the whole of creation can be seen here:



[size=large]
10And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.

11The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;

12And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.

13And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.

14And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.



These rivers are named from the knowledge of the writer, and this gives the impression that already there is an established existence. In the day of Moses, these were established locales, and this is injected into the account.

But the primary point I would make is that we see that chapters 2 and 3 are a separate account from the initial creation of plants and animals. It gives more details surrounding man's creation.

Within this account we read:



Genesis 2

19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

20And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.



It seems that a sequential order of events is implied, but this is just a general statement that God formed the cattle, beast of the field, and the fowl, and brought them to Adam to be named.

Just as the order of the creation of plants is consistent, it is not unreasonable to see this as a general statement, rather than a rearrangement of the order of creation.

What is likely in my mind is that Adam named the animals that were in the Garden, which would have been a limited number. We see the same type of statement in "All Israel will be saved," but we do not take this to mean that every person born unto the nation of Israel will be saved, but those that pertain to that particular point in time. Because those of Israel who reject God will have been destroyed, it is true that those who remain (the remnant that did trust in God in obedience) will naturally be saved, and thus the statement "All Israel will be saved" will be accurate. But if we look at this statement to mean that God at this time now creates animals and fowl, we have to assume the writer, within two chapters, contradicts himself.

While I can see why some would like to see this contradiction, I can see it as in harmony with the creation account.

I view this as putting emphasis on two great truths: 1) that man is separated from animals in a significant way, and 2) it is a woman that is to be the suitable mate for the man.



21And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

22And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.


Here is a focal point in the account. The statement of v. 19...



Genesis 2

19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.


...does not emphasize the sequence of creation, but the significance of woman's creation, and man's need for her.


[quote='Sines' pid='48360' dateline='1318010868'
Man and woman are created simultaneously (Or at least consecutively) in Genesis 1.
[/quote]

We know that they were created on the same day:


Genesis 1

26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.


How does this conflict with chapter Two?

[quote='Sines' pid='48360' dateline='1318010868'
In Genesis 2, man and woman are now separated in their creation by all other life.
[/quote

They are separated in Chapter One as well:



Genesis 1

28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.



Man was given dominion over the earth. In the fall, there were some radical changes. Vegans might be interested to know that God created man and animals...vegetarian:


Genesis 1

29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.


"Meat" means food.

In the beginning, animals did not eat each other, but lived upon the produce of the earth, as did man. In the Millennial Kingdom, it is said that we will see, in part at least, a return to a semblance of creation's prior condition.





[quote='Sines' pid='48360' dateline='1318010868'
I don't care what you think day means.
[/quote

I have not mentioned my thoughts about day, as we would need to look at each in it's context. In Genesis One, as I said, I view the phrase "the evening and the morning" to remove all doubt as to the length of time in each "day" of creation.

There are men I consider far more intelligent than myself (and that does not take much) that view the "day" of the creation account to speak of a lengthy time, based in part at least on the phrase "a thousand years is as a day, and a day as a thousand years to the Lord."

I see that phrase as meaning time is irrelevant to an omnipresent God that can traverse both time and space at will. To illustrate what I mean, I believe that when John was given visions of the future time of the Tribulation that he actually saw what he saw in "real time."

[quote='Sines' pid='48360' dateline='1318010868'

I'm willing to go whole hog and say genesis 1 is supposed to be all metaphorical, and by 'creation' it really means 'god directed the evolution of'.
[/quote

Theistic evolutionists believe this as well. I do not. But it is not an issue that I am going to get hung up on, and build my beliefs upon this as a foundation. My beliefs are built upon the foundation of Christ, Who is God...the Savior. All of my beliefs rise from that foundation.

If I am thought a fool because I look at the Creation Account as literal, so be it.


[quote='Sines' pid='48360' dateline='1318010868'
I don't think that's the original meaning, but whatever, that's not my point.
[/quote

You don't think what is the original meaning? I am not sure if the reference is to the term "day" or if this concerns the Creation Account as metaphorical.

If the former, we can go through the usage of the original Hebrew word and see how it is usually used, and the meaning is usually identifiable from the context.

Example:



Genesis 7:4
King James Version (KJV)


4For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.



Whether one "buys" the account of the flood or not, we see here the same word used to refer to seven literal days. If we go further, and look at the use of "evening," we will probably be led to see the Creation Account to refer to literal days also. Not a big deal when you believe that it was God doing the creating.

Also, consider:


Exodus 20:11
King James Version (KJV)


11For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.



This is stated to parallel the seven day week, and compares the creation to a seven day week, and the importance of the Sabbath. Six days (same word as found in Genesis One) man shall labor, but he is not to labor on the seventh (Sabbath).

If, on the other hand, the latter is in view here, I will say that I can understand someone seeing the Creation Account as metaphorical, though I do not think that it holds up. But, again, I see no reason to get hung up on personal views on this.




[quote='Sines' pid='48360' dateline='1318010868'
My point is that, no matter how you interpret it, no matter what you think day means here, no matter what you think created means here, the order is still wrong.
[/quote

It is only perceived as wrong, due to misreading the text. On the order of plants I have without doubt shown that plants still come before Adam when the Garden is formed, and concerning the beasts, I can understand why you might think ch. 2 gives the impression that beasts follow Adam. However, I think that if one reads it apart from the bias instilled by the dreadfully inadequate commentary that is given by those who "refute scripture," one might change their view concerning the account.

[quote='Sines' pid='48360' dateline='1318010868'
Contradicting both science and itself, the Bible can't agree with anything.
[/quote

Okay, you say this, but I ask: will you at least admit to the points where you yourself have contradicted yourself? Will you at least admit that you might have spoken before all data was examined?

[quote='Sines' pid='48360' dateline='1318010868'
I'm not interested in any other justifications of Genesis.
[/quote

Okay, I can live with that. But I do have a problem with conclusions that are so easily seen to be in error.

[quote='Sines' pid='48360' dateline='1318010868'
Just the order.
[/quote

At the very least, will you cede that your calculations on 1 Chronicles and the "order" of plants and Adam were wrong?

[quote='Sines' pid='48360' dateline='1318010868'
I'll concede everything else for the sake of this argument. Just explain to me why several events are said to happen the wrong way around.
[/quote

While I can read the account and see no contradiction, I can also see as to why some would see the ch. 2 account as contradictory.

It is not a matter of perception, bias, and a desire to believe a particular way alone.

Also involved are matters such as, the natural man cannot know the spiritual things of God, and when the heart of man is determined to retain a particular belief about something, his pride will cause him to at times forego an honest approach in both what he believes as well as when he is challenged on that belief.

It is good to remain open to the possibility that we might be wrong, or that we place faith in something that does not really deserve either faith...or loyalty.

I just challenge you to look at a few points here that have been brought up and see if you are willing to at least admit that you may have been mistaken in some of your conclusions and assertions. Not so that I might elevate myself, but that you might examine this part of the basis of your belief.

keep in mind that this response is for you, not the general public. As it has been brought up that the attention span of the average person is limited, I have found that to be true. It is doubtful that there will be more than a couple of people that will bother to read this, and this is actually beneficial, as it makes this less general.

S.T.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-10-2011, 10:31 AM
RE: The Bible is Mathematically Impossible
Post didn't appear again. Do you know what your doing differently? Different computer? Different browser? Anyway, I'll try to reply as best as I can, but if I mix something up, it's not intentional.

First off, I admitted that the materials mentioned in chronicles could have been meant for an expansion of the temple, rather than as materials to go into it to decorate it, or as the initial materials for construction. To re-iterate what I said then, I think it is possible that there might be some scriptural reason this is not so, but I don't care to look for it. My laziness cuts both ways.

Now, Genesis 2...

Quote: 5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams[b] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the LORD God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

There was no shrub of plant "For the lord god had not sent rain on the earth, and there was no one to work the ground". The KJV specifically mentions that there was no man to work the ground.

I read this as there being no plants for two reasons. No water, and no man. This would require the creation of man for the creation of plants. God could supply the rain himself.

For the animals, god said that it was not good that man should be alone. Then it mentions him creating animals. Sorry, but I read that as "Man was alone, so god made the animals to help him". That's what it looks like to me. If the book really means "It was not good that man was alone, but fortunately, god had already created this animals for him in advance, and so the lord took man to the animals so that he may find a helper" then the book is incredibly poorly written, writing things in such an obfuscatory style that it seems almost intended to confuse.

So, I can see where you're finding your wiggle-room, but I'm not buying it. It sounds like you're trying to fit in any excuse you can, rather than reading it as written.

Now, onto science. Do I have faith in science? It depends on what you mean by faith. I have no problem saying I have faith in science if the word means trust. Because trust is belief that something or someone is going to do things right based not on your own seperate knowledge of the activities in question, but on the track record of the person or thing. I trust my mother will do what she thinks is in my best interest, because she has a remarkable track record of doing so. I trust the floorboards beneath my feet will not break, dropping me into the basement, because they have supported my weight thus far, and have shown no signs of weakness.

And I trust science because I am currently communicating with someone hundreds or even thousands of miles away in a trivial fashion. I trust science because I have flown in the air at hundreds of miles per hour. I trust science because I have played games with people on the other side of the planet, games which require almost instantaneous transmission of actions between computers. I trust science because I live in a paradise wrought with electricity and tempered in the fires of science, where all of man's knowledge lays at my fingertips, where temperature and climate can be locally controlled, where medication stops my seizures and cures my heartburn, where I can harness mighty forces beyond the wildest imaginings of the people in the days of the bible... to look at pictures of naked women.

So yah, science has done a lot for me. So when the same group of people that figured out how electricity works, and how to cure my illnesses say that something else is true, I have good reason to think they probably are. Maybe they're wrong, but they're right often enough that I'm willing to trust them. If that's what you call faith, then I have faith in science. And it has done me no end of good.

If, however, by faith you mean belief in something without evidence... well, even if I did have such a faith in science... why should I need to? There is ample evidence that science is a remarkable tool for learning the truth of the world, and that scientists, in general, are well intended scholars, who simply wish to learn new things, and share that knowledge with humanity, for our benefit.

Can you say that about religion? What practical benefit have you gained from your religion that would only exist if the religion were true? For science, my computer wouldn't work just because I believed in the theories of electricity. Our understanding of electricity has to, in at least some strong way, be true, otherwise my computer wouldn't work at all.

As for how do I know things... well, to explain those things to you to your level of satisfaction would take far more effort than I'm willing to bring, especially since I predict my odds of success are low. But here's some primers so that you can do the research on your own, if you so desire.

Earth and Sun. Radioactive dating is a pretty handy tool for discovering how old a rock was when it formed. Basically, while still molten, radioactive isoptopes were present all throughout the molten mass in roughly homogeneous amounts. When the rock solidified, however, these isotopes could not be replenished, and based on how much of them had decayed, we can guess how long it's been. Radioactive dating is always cross-referenced as well. Multiple methods of dating are used, in case of problems that might ruin one methods usefulness. If the multiple methods all agree, the geologists can safely come to a conclusion of the age of the rock in question. For this we've gotten 4.6 billion years.

I'm not too sure about the sun off the top of my head, but the sun was originally a ball of mostly hydrogen. This hydrogen is fused into helium, and this produces the suns energy, and provides energy with unique characteristics. By observing the sun's light, it can be possible to determine how much of it's fuel it has used (As the occasional helium will fuse to make energy as well, which has a different appearance than hydrogen fusion light). At least, that's what I'd guess. I don't know that subject too well. But you can look up these kind of things online for yourself. Alternatively, Cosmos is available on Hulu, I'm sure there's a program where Sagan describes how we know the age of the sun.

We know birds came after land animals because studies have shown that birds evolved from dinosaurs. The classic intermediary fossil is archeopteryx. A feathered, winged dinosaur. You can look him up, although I doubt you'll go for it, being a creationist and all. You'll probably want to start examining the evidence for evolution. My personal favorite is the E. Coli Long Term study. In this experiment, e. coli samples have been observed for over 20 years. Most notably, one sample of the bacteria has been witnessed to evolve the ability to eat a new kind of food, and this evolutionary step had what creationists would call an 'irreducibly complex' component. Feel free to look that up.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-10-2011, 02:19 PM (This post was last modified: 08-10-2011 02:25 PM by S.T. Ranger.)
RE: The Bible is Mathematically Impossible
Hello Sines, thanks for the response. I went back and acually modified the post so that there were no quotes (it was suggested by moderation that this may be the reason) and to no avail. It is doubtful that the reason lies on my end, as there seems to be a "suggishness" that occurs only at this site, because reaction is normal on other tabs.

I do want to point out that I erronously implied v. 5 as meaning plants were there, however, I still maintain that it does not imply sequence of events, but a general statment only.

Okay, probably the last post for the day, need to do some yardwork (hooray).

Note-having read this post (twice now), I want to say I am sorry to hear of your seizures and heartburn (this latter I am familiar with and can relate).



(08-10-2011 10:31 AM)Sines Wrote:  Post didn't appear again. Do you know what your doing differently? Different computer? Different browser? Anyway, I'll try to reply as best as I can, but if I mix something up, it's not intentional.

First off, I admitted that the materials mentioned in chronicles could have been meant for an expansion of the temple, rather than as materials to go into it to decorate it, or as the initial materials for construction. To re-iterate what I said then, I think it is possible that there might be some scriptural reason this is not so, but I don't care to look for it. My laziness cuts both ways.

You can see my laziness (as well as haste, I am trying to finish up quickly that I might spend time with my wife) in the previous post. I did not take the time to examone the text as well as I should.

(08-10-2011 10:31 AM)Sines Wrote:  Now, Genesis 2...

Quote: 5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

There was no shrub of plant "For the lord god had not sent rain on the earth, and there was no one to work the ground". The KJV specifically mentions that there was no man to work the ground.

I read this as there being no plants for two reasons. No water, and no man. This would require the creation of man for the creation of plants. God could supply the rain himself.

There is water (the mist [streams in this version]) but no man. There was no rain upon the earth until the flood, approximately a thousand years later.

Not sure what you mean by "This would require the creation of man for the creation of plants."

(08-10-2011 10:31 AM)Sines Wrote:  For the animals, god said that it was not good that man should be alone. Then it mentions him creating animals.


Again, though it may sound like an "excuse," the animals are already in existence, maintaining the sequence of ch. 1, but among the animals there was not found a suitable mate:

Genesis 2

18And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

20And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.



The emphasis is on the fact that man was alone. At this point, both man and animal life are made...out of the ground. Of the creation thus far, there is not, as stated in v.20, a "suitable helper."

If I said I got married, built my house, got a dog, and named him, would the sequence of events change if I then said I named my dog in the house I built?

Same thing here, it is a matter of perspective when looking at the account of events.




(08-10-2011 10:31 AM)Sines Wrote:  Sorry, but I read that as "Man was alone, so god made the animals to help him".


Genesis 2

18And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

20And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.


The intent is, again, that man was in need of a "helper." That it is reiterated that God formed the animals from the ground does not justify a sequence different from ch. One.

(08-10-2011 10:31 AM)Sines Wrote:  That's what it looks like to me. If the book really means "It was not good that man was alone, but fortunately, god had already created this animals for him in advance, and so the lord took man to the animals so that he may find a helper" then the book is incredibly poorly written, writing things in such an obfuscatory style that it seems almost intended to confuse.

Okay, consider:

Genesis 2

8And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.



Genesis 2

15And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.


Both verses imply that God first formed the Garden, and then placed man in it.

Two things to keep in mind concerning how poorly or not this is recorded:

1-It is a translation;

2-We would have to be fluent in the original language as well as analyze the literary and cultural factors to make this determination.


If we contrasted this with a modern literary work that goes by a particular set of rules that it might be classified as great literature, we might very well think this to be poorly written, even as we might contrast the Pyramids with modern architecture, and prefer the latter over the former (though I think modern structures will have fallen long before the Pyramids do).


(08-10-2011 10:31 AM)Sines Wrote:  So, I can see where you're finding your wiggle-room, but I'm not buying it.

Good thing it is not for sale...lol.


(08-10-2011 10:31 AM)Sines Wrote:  It sounds like you're trying to fit in any excuse you can, rather than reading it as written.

Do these...


Genesis 2

8And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.



Genesis 2

15And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.


...indicate that man, or the Garden (and the implication being that plants were in existence) came first?

Okay, you are determined, I'll give you that. I will move on to "science."

(08-10-2011 10:31 AM)Sines Wrote:  Now, onto science. Do I have faith in science? It depends on what you mean by faith. I have no problem saying I have faith in science if the word means trust. Because trust is belief that something or someone is going to do things right based not on your own seperate knowledge of the activities in question, but on the track record of the person or thing.

But do you allow that science has been found to not to be trusted at times? Would allow that there are those who abuse science for gain, even as there are those who use religion for gain?

If you are ever in the market for a book to read, I suggest "State of Fear" by Michael Crighton (and yes, I am a Jurassic Park fan).

In the book, he states that the Goddard Institute for Space Studies removed certain data (and of course this info was in a later edition than the first) after this book came out. I will not elaborate on this, but use it as an example that science is not only "ever learning" and reposturing on things, but there are those that have agendas which will overshadow truth.

(08-10-2011 10:31 AM)Sines Wrote:  I trust my mother will do what she thinks is in my best interest, because she has a remarkable track record of doing so. I trust the floorboards beneath my feet will not break, dropping me into the basement, because they have supported my weight thus far, and have shown no signs of weakness.

That is not very different from my trust in God. Understand, I am not trying to convince you of this, I can no more relay my faith in God than you can your trust in your mother. I would just ask that you consider that both instances of trust (as well as faith) have a basis. I trust God because so far, according to my study, I have not seen Him renege on one promise.

(08-10-2011 10:31 AM)Sines Wrote:  And I trust science because I am currently communicating with someone hundreds or even thousands of miles away in a trivial fashion.

An analogy might be I trust God because I pray for things that come about. You may see that as only coincidence, but I do not.

(08-10-2011 10:31 AM)Sines Wrote:  I trust science because I have flown in the air at hundreds of miles per hour.

Not only that, but you are placing faith that the crew will not fall asleep. This happened recently.

(08-10-2011 10:31 AM)Sines Wrote:  I trust science because I have played games with people on the other side of the planet, games which require almost instantaneous transmission of actions between computers. I trust science because I live in a paradise wrought with electricity and tempered in the fires of science, where all of man's knowledge lays at my fingertips,

We just don't know the possibilities concerning scientific study. It seems that every time we think we have reached the limits of what this world contains, we find new data. I believe that there is still much more to be learned. I believe that one day we will look back on this very day and think, "Man, technology was very limited at that time."

The advances even in the last twenty years are incredible. What we know now compared to even such a relatively short time ago is incredible. I look forward to other discoveries.

(08-10-2011 10:31 AM)Sines Wrote:  where temperature and climate can be locally controlled,

I actually make my living concerning this...lol. So I have probably more reason to be thankful for this aspect of science (which is incredible when looked at in the design level) than most.


(08-10-2011 10:31 AM)Sines Wrote:  where medication stops my seizures and cures my heartburn,

I know it doesn't mean much to you, probably, but I will pray for you.


(08-10-2011 10:31 AM)Sines Wrote:  where I can harness mighty forces beyond the wildest imaginings of the people in the days of the bible...

There is no question that progressive revelation has a parallel in progressive discovery.

(08-10-2011 10:31 AM)Sines Wrote:  to look at pictures of naked women.


Those poor guys had to look at the real thing....lol. I am getting the impression you are young, and my advice would be to avoid addictions of any kind.

(08-10-2011 10:31 AM)Sines Wrote:  So yah, science has done a lot for me. So when the same group of people that figured out how electricity works, and how to cure my illnesses say that something else is true, I have good reason to think they probably are.

But how about the other side? How about those that are willing to lie, and to cover up truth to progress agenda. While the charlatans and false teachers of religion are reviled (and rightly so), surely you would hold accountable those who are not sincere and genuine in the scientific arena, would you?


(08-10-2011 10:31 AM)Sines Wrote:  Maybe they're wrong, but they're right often enough that I'm willing to trust them.

There are scientists on both sides of the fence that genuinely are in it for the science. We can have faith that there are those who's efforts are for the betterment of mankind.

(08-10-2011 10:31 AM)Sines Wrote:  If that's what you call faith, then I have faith in science.

Thanks for the honesty, and for some great examples of faith. I appreciate that.


(08-10-2011 10:31 AM)Sines Wrote:  And it has done me no end of good.

Again, how about the other side of the coin certain sciences that advance man in power and ability can also be used by some to his detriment.

The same can be said of religion: take Jim Jones, for example.

(08-10-2011 10:31 AM)Sines Wrote:  If, however, by faith you mean belief in something without evidence...

Biblical faith has many facets, I believe. No-one can truly relay the new birth to another, but it is something that is not a matter of faith in the individual, but is fact in their life. I can say that.

Faith itself is said to be the "evidence" of things unseen. It differs a little from your faith in the science of aviation, and moves more toward your faith in the aviation crew. If you were boarding a plane and noticed that the crew were completely drunk, would you still have enough faith in science to remain on the plane, or would your faith be replaced by your common sense, leading you to abandon both science and crew?

(08-10-2011 10:31 AM)Sines Wrote:  well, even if I did have such a faith in science... why should I need to? There is ample evidence that science is a remarkable tool for learning the truth of the world, and that scientists, in general, are well intended scholars, who simply wish to learn new things, and share that knowledge with humanity, for our benefit.

I agree. However, I do not place faith in a science, or its conclusions, until all data has been examined. That requires looking at the data from both sides in...a scientific manner. Science can be judged by science itself, right?

It is scientific approach that analyzes scientific findings. It is not science that claims there are more hurricanes today, but an agenda that changed how hurricanes are rated, lowering the bar, making it appear that there are more today.

What is the reason for this?

(08-10-2011 10:31 AM)Sines Wrote:  Can you say that about religion?

Actually, no. But understand I am not a religionist, I am a Christian, trying to understand scripture better.

Religion has man working his way to God, thus inserting in the middle a reliance on man.

Christianity is the only faith in which it is God, not man, that makes salvation possible. It is the reverse of religion, where God comes from to man.


(08-10-2011 10:31 AM)Sines Wrote:  What practical benefit have you gained from your religion that would only exist if the religion were true?

This would be a long list, actually. I once held a worldview very similar to those here. I determined right and wrong according to my own standard, which led to drugs and alcohol. By sixteen I was a full-blown alcoholic and addict. Tried for years to quit, but could not. God took that away rather quickly.

Now this could be just a reformation of the old me, rather than the transformation I believe occurred. I may be an addled witless fool who's trust and faith in God and His word is misplaced. But, that is personal, as a relationship with God is a personal relationship between God and man.

Since conversion, the practical benefits are numerous. One of the more important benefits is actually having a concern for others, and going beyond that, the sloooow, pain ful process of actually putting the needs of others,,,before myself. You see, I have always been a very selfish person. Still am, but not as bad as once I was.

(08-10-2011 10:31 AM)Sines Wrote:  For science, my computer wouldn't work just because I believed in the theories of electricity. Our understanding of electricity has to, in at least some strong way, be true, otherwise my computer wouldn't work at all.

But science did not create electricity. Should we then say that your faith is actually in nature (where we find electricity), or in creation itself?

(08-10-2011 10:31 AM)Sines Wrote:  As for how do I know things... well, to explain those things to you to your level of satisfaction would take far more effort than I'm willing to bring, especially since I predict my odds of success are low. But here's some primers so that you can do the research on your own, if you so desire.

Earth and Sun. Radioactive dating is a pretty handy tool for discovering how old a rock was when it formed.

You have much more faith than I do. Because I am a little bit of a cynic and skeptic, I do not believe anything that comes out of a man's mouth that I cannot examine for myself.

When it comes to dating procedures, I have been skeptical of this "science" for a long time.

See here for an interesting read.

Now, do I take for granted that because this link agrees better with my theology that I count it to be valid proof to doubt dating procedures? No. My theology is based upon scripture, and I am quite content to let those who want to debate the age of the earth and the fossil record have at it. Neither side changes or sways my beliefs.


(08-10-2011 10:31 AM)Sines Wrote:  Basically, while still molten, radioactive isoptopes were present all throughout the molten mass in roughly homogeneous amounts. When the rock solidified, however, these isotopes could not be replenished, and based on how much of them had decayed, we can guess how long it's been. Radioactive dating is always cross-referenced as well. Multiple methods of dating are used, in case of problems that might ruin one methods usefulness. If the multiple methods all agree, the geologists can safely come to a conclusion of the age of the rock in question. For this we've gotten 4.6 billion years.

I would be curious of your thoughts on the previous link provided.

(08-10-2011 10:31 AM)Sines Wrote:  I'm not too sure about the sun off the top of my head, but the sun was originally a ball of mostly hydrogen. This hydrogen is fused into helium, and this produces the suns energy, and provides energy with unique characteristics.

Can man replicate this energy source?


(08-10-2011 10:31 AM)Sines Wrote:  By observing the sun's light, it can be possible to determine how much of it's fuel it has used (As the occasional helium will fuse to make energy as well, which has a different appearance than hydrogen fusion light). At least, that's what I'd guess. I don't know that subject too well. But you can look up these kind of things online for yourself. Alternatively, Cosmos is available on Hulu, I'm sure there's a program where Sagan describes how we know the age of the sun.

You're sure? Because Carl Sagan says so? Again, you have more faith in man than I.

(08-10-2011 10:31 AM)Sines Wrote:  We know birds came after land animals because studies have shown that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

You have examined this evidence for yourself?

It makes me think of those who believe man has never been on the moon. That it was a hoax. This is the other side of the spectrum. One side denies certain things altogether, while the other dogmatically states it as fact.


(08-10-2011 10:31 AM)Sines Wrote:  The classic intermediary fossil is archeopteryx. A feathered, winged dinosaur.

This may not mean much, but I use to work with ostriches. Have you ever noticed the reptilian features of the ostrich? Having had to hold on to these creatures (for dear life I might add) I can see how some might conclude this creature as a "transitional" species. I myself would not take it for granted that certain characteristics imply a transitional species.

See [b]here[/b] for an interesting read.

Here is what I guess to be a pro-evolution link concerning archeopteryx. Look at it and see if you can find aspects that seem forced.


Here is an interesting link, where it seems scientists may not be in agreement concerning archeopteryx.


So who do you believe? My guess is, the one that better suits us...right?

(08-10-2011 10:31 AM)Sines Wrote:  You can look him up, although I doubt you'll go for it, being a creationist and all.

And being a creationist is synonymous with refusing to research? Come on, you know that is not true.

The primary difference withmy research and that of a true scientist is that I am at the mercy of those who have conducted studies and their findings. But, I can admit that, and recognize that most that have science and particular findings as the basis of their belief are no different than those who believe differently: they have placed their faith in the fact that all the scientists that are in agreement with their particular beliefs...are telling the truth.

(08-10-2011 10:31 AM)Sines Wrote:  You'll probably want to start examining the evidence for evolution.

Does that mean that you might start examining scripture more closely, that you can better guage the validity of the statements of those who speak about scripture?

(08-10-2011 10:31 AM)Sines Wrote:  My personal favorite is the E. Coli Long Term study. In this experiment, e. coli samples have been observed for over 20 years. Most notably, one sample of the bacteria has been witnessed to evolve the ability to eat a new kind of food, and this evolutionary step had what creationists would call an 'irreducibly complex' component. Feel free to look that up.

Okay, looked it up. Not impressed.

Of course you know that was coming...lol.

Does this mean that we are actually evolving when our bodies build up resistance and tolerance for certain viruses? One interesting thing that I read in looking at archeopteryx were the "tooth buds" found in birds. Is it not also possible that there may have been something in existence in the past that may have generated growth of teeth after birth, but has no passed out of existance?

Okay, gotta go. Enjoyed the conversation, look forward to discussion in the future (because one day we will have the science to actually do that...lol. Just kidding, if you think about that you might find a little humor).

S.T.
Okay, it posted, but I noticed the bold in part of this: this was most likely user error. I will look to see where it happened, but think it has to do with the links.

S.T.
Found it: when you lettered Genesis 2 you used [b] which tied to the one in the link.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2011, 12:06 AM
RE: The Bible is Mathematically Impossible
Man you talk a lot! Seriously, you talk more than me... and I don't know when to shut up. So, I'm not going to reply to this whole thing. There's one point I felt I really wanted to address, so it's below. If you want me to address any other point of your reply, say so, but try to keep it to only a few points. There's a lot to respond to, and if I were to respond to even half of it, this would go out of control right quick. I'm not dodging, I just don't have that kind of patience to hit on everything Big Grin Also, in the future, try to edit your replies. You respond to every sentence I write, when you could probably condense a lot more. The less you write, the easier it is to respond to. Again, I don't mean to be rude, this is just a request that will facilitate conversation in the future.

(08-10-2011 02:19 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  
(08-10-2011 10:31 AM)Sines Wrote:  What practical benefit have you gained from your religion that would only exist if the religion were true?

This would be a long list, actually. I once held a worldview very similar to those here. I determined right and wrong according to my own standard, which led to drugs and alcohol. By sixteen I was a full-blown alcoholic and addict. Tried for years to quit, but could not. God took that away rather quickly.

Now this could be just a reformation of the old me, rather than the transformation I believe occurred. I may be an addled witless fool who's trust and faith in God and His word is misplaced. But, that is personal, as a relationship with God is a personal relationship between God and man.

Since conversion, the practical benefits are numerous. One of the more important benefits is actually having a concern for others, and going beyond that, the sloooow, pain ful process of actually putting the needs of others,,,before myself. You see, I have always been a very selfish person. Still am, but not as bad as once I was.

Two things. First off, I've heard of these "I was a terrible person before I found god" stories. I have no idea how many of them are true, but they always come off to me as questionable. Perhaps your story is true. But even if it is... it has nothing to do with me.

I've never taken a single drug that wasn't either proscribed to me, or given over the counter. I've never taken any of those beyond the recommended dose. And, I don't drink. I've had drinks on occasion, but those are always special occasions. And I don't mean "It's new years eve, so I'll have a drink," I mean, "I lost a bet, guess I have to drink." I've only ever had more than a sip of alcohol twice in my life. And that was solely at the request of friends who wanted to see me drunk (Which is what they got out of that bet I lost Big Grin). Furthermore, I care about others. A week or so ago, I spent about an hour keeping an eye on my roommate who had drunk himself stupid. Lying on the floor in the bathroom (his size, combined with the smallness of the bathroom made moving him pretty much not an option), I gave him one of my pillows to help him, and got it back puked on.

Now, maybe not everyone on this board is as booze and narcotic free as I am. But if that's how you were back then, then you were nothing like me. At my very worst, I used to be a bit violent, when pushed. But that was when I was very young. These days, my worst attributes are my laziness, forgetfulness, and irresponsibility. But I'm trying to improve those, and I've been succeeding.

But as for not doing drugs, and being nice to people... well, I've probably been getting more considerate as I get older, but I've always cared about others. I didn't need god for that, and, really, most people don't.

I remember when my mom asked me why one should be moral without some higher power or some such (Not in an accusatory way, but in an honest question kind of way). I told her to punch me in the face, that I would absolve her of all guilt. She refused, I urged her on, and she eventually lightly poked me, laughing. Most people are just naturally nice. She couldn't stand the idea of hurting me. That's something you don't need god for.

My question was not what benefits religion had provided you. Obviously there are some, I can't deny that. I should rightly be laughed at and mocked if I said religious beliefs held no benefits. But what I asked was what benefits does religion provide that would only exist if religion was true? If an engineer doesn't have a proper understanding of electrical theory, he won't be able to build a computer. That's how we know that our understanding of electricity strongly reflects the truth (As I would never say any scientific theory is fully true).

All of those changes do not require the existence of a god. Indeed, as other religions can produce the same changes in people, we can safely conclude that there is something in the nature of the religion itself, not it's ultimate truth, that does the work. Believing in a higher power might make it easier to make those changes, but the higher power doesn't need to exist.

So, maybe it is christianity that is helping you become a better person. But I'm sure judaism and buddhism can have the same effect. And so does humanism, the moral beliefs of most outspoken atheists (i.e. the dudes you'll find here). Honestly, I don't think it's the religion though. At least, not directly. Religions are package deals, including both how we should behave, and what the nature of reality is. Those how we should behaves do not, I believe, all originate inside the religion, but were rather adopted from outside the religion, as they were good ideas. I'm sure you'll agree that, for example, the Israelites knew that killing and stealing were wrong before Moses came down from the mountain.

So while not being addicted to substances, and being nice to others might be taught in the religion, they didn't originate there. Those were good ideas on their own, with or without a god backing them up. And you were ultimately a good person, because you cared about whether or not you were a good person. If you truly were an evil bastard, you wouldn't care that you were, and wouldn't try to change it. Religion may have helped, but you wouldn't have felt the need for help if there wasn't good in you to start with.

So, you didn't provide an answer to my question. Nothing about what happened to you required Yahweh to exist. Plenty of people in different religions, or even under other philosophies, have become better persons. Even if a god exists, there's no reason to think he truly had any hand in your change at all. You made the decision to change, and perhaps with religion providing helping encouragement, succeeded. But one thing is for certain. If people can make those changes in themselves without Yahweh or Jesus, then it's entirely possible that, even if they exist, they didn't do a thing, because they saw that you could do it on your own.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2011, 05:44 AM
RE: The Bible is Mathematically Impossible
(08-10-2011 02:19 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  When it comes to dating procedures, I have been skeptical of this "science" for a long time.

See here for an interesting read.


Or maybe here.

Why won't God heal amputees?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: