Round 8

Q:
       ‪Genesis 1‬

‪The fact that the Bible was written by multiple authors, shows more of it's flaws. The authors are bound to have different stories, the stories that they made up, not very truthful.‬

‪It's more evidence that the Bible is nothing more than a book of man, no God. What they wrote is definitely what a man of 2,000 years ago would think. It's clear that they do NOT know light came from the sun, or that plants need light for photosynthesis. They do not know about the earlier creatures that went extinct, of course. No mention of dinosaurs or cavemen.‬

‪It's CLEAR the authors did NOT know about those things. It's not because they say it in a way for the men of the time to understand, they really DON'T know. When they said the earth is just 6,000 years old, they really made it up. It's no allegory.‬

‪If we were men of 2,000 years ago, we would never have thought about dinosaurs or planets or any of that. The fact that they never mentioned those things, prove they do not know it.‬

‪On to your interpretations:‬

‪Day 1. It clearly was talking about Day and Night. One thing they didn't know is what was causing it, so they say God is doing it (separating light and darkness). But we do know it's from Earth's rotation.‬

‪Day 2. It was talking about separating waters. Nothing about planets forming.‬

‪Day 3. Clearly talks about the earth being nothing but water, then land appearing in it, and we know that's just another made-up story of the authors.‬

‪Day 4. It clear the sun was created AFTER light was appeared. It is known that before Day 4, there is no sun, clearly. Day 4 implies that the sun doesn't emit light, which we know is false. Your part about it not being visible, is wrong. It's not about being able to see it, it's about knowing it exists. Day 4 only proves that it's the day the sun, moon, stars were created, not when it's finally visible.‬

‪Day 5. It's clear that it talks about MODERN fishes and birds appearing. They clearly do NOT know about the earlier extinct species of earth. It's also clear there is NO mention of dinosaurs.‬

‪The authors CLEARLY have no knowledge of these things. Proves it's just a made up creation story by early ignorant men who knew nothing of science.‬

‪Day 6. Again, shows no proper knowledge. And as for prehistoric men, even you should be smart enough to admit that THEY are our ancestors. They are prehistoric HUMANS after all. But the Bible doesn't know that and doesn't mention cavemen. Again, limited by the authors' knowledge.‬

‪And about God creating men in his own image, has big flaws. God's image is a human, right? He has a face, hands, feet, etc. But why? In the very beginning, there was nothing but God. But why would he have eyes, when he can see nothing? Hands, when he can't touch anything? Ears, when there's no sound? Feet? Tongue? Why does God have all these features that are adapted for living on Earth in the very beginning?‬

‪Here's the more reasonable answer. MAN created God in his own image, not the other way around.‬

‪Anything else that you add with interpretation, there is no real evidence to prove it. But what I wrote up there, has logic and reasoning applied, and makes sense.‬

‪To Genesis 2.‬
‪"But if one reads The Bible properly then those contradictions disappear."‬
‪What do you mean by read properly? How?‬

‪You mean just read and blindly believe whatever it says no matter what?‬

‪When you see information that has so many contradictions and false ideas, it's common sense that it is FALSE. That is the Bible.‬

‪Contradiction indicates falseness.‬

‪Example I made up: 9 P.M. two friends murdered and raped a girl in a dark alley and threw the body somewhere. Witnesses saw the car of those two was near that alley. A camera saw those two were talking angrily with the girl at a shopping mall.‬

‪Police interviewed them separately: Where were you two at 9 P.M. that night?‬

‪Joe: We were at the movies.‬
‪Bob: I was watching T.V. in my house alone then went to bed.‬

‪Before police could arrest them for more investigation, Bob's mom said:‬

‪-Hold on don't take their stories literally. Just have faith in them. Here's my interpretation. About what Joe meant, I think Bob was watching a movie on T.V. alone, and Joe was in another room, also watching a movie. So their story matches, right?‬
‪-That's obviously wrong. And where you there, ma'am?‬
‪-No, but‬
‪-Well then we're taking them.‬
‪-Wait! Just have faith in them, they're good boys.‬
‪-Faith doesn't prove anything. We have witnesses and video evidence.‬
‪Nuff' said.‬

‪So yeah, when you see contradictions, don't just believe things right away.‬
‪Contradictions lead to falseness, and interpretation doesn't really stop that.‬


A:
        Ok,

Gen 1.

Man. The fact that have different stories is one of the amazing aspects of it all! They're different human beings, with their own life experiences and perspectives on events. That doesn't negate their validity at all. The fact that all these different men wrote all these letters, over all those years, and out of it came the most cohesive and simple path to God, the most pure and perfect message of Truth.

You cannot fault a people for speaking in the language/world knowledge of their time period. It would be ridiculous for the authors of The Bible to speak in modern day scientific terms or even layman's terms of concepts thousands of years away from discovery. Is God unaware of those concepts? Of course not. He created them. But the people of the time were far, far different than us, dude. There understanding of the world, their life perspectives were far different than ours. You can't fault them for speaking and writing in their language. God worked through them. The Bible was written by people, for people. They're stories and letters and gospels. The Bible is simply a collection of them arranged to tell the story of God.

Of course they knew light came from the sun. The didn't know what a photon was or what the definition of photosynthesis is. But they knew the sun admitted light, and the plants needed that light to live. And, you're right, The Bible doesn't specifically say the word dinosaur. Does it have to?

You're right. The author's didn't know about a lot of things. You're ridiculing them for being men in the middle east, thousands of years ago and not having the same perspective as your western mind.

The Bible doesn't say that the earth is 6000 years old. Man did, after interpreting the creation week as 7 literal 24hr days. They didn't make up the number. They did the math. I don't believe it, but they do. And really, it doesn't matter.

Again, you're ridiculing them for not being aware of concepts thousands of years away from discovery. Them not knowing things that science has taught us about our universe is not a negative. It's not the point. You're right, if we were men of that time we wouldn't understand the the complexity of our solar system let alone galaxy/universe. Would we need to?

OK, your points.

1. I'm not sure what you mean here. I believe you're reading the passage wrong. While it does identify and define light/dark, night/day. And even while it ends in 'the first day' you can't jump to the conclusion that it was one 24hr Earth day. God is the subject. He's creating. He is infinite. What is a day to God? Especially since our sun and stars had yet to be created (day 4) in the poem, so the systems to define an Earth day weren't even in place.

2. What do you think happens when balls of cosmic gas and elements cool and form under the pressure of gravity? It solidifies. Over time our atmosphere was established and the waters below were separated from the waters above.

3. You can't use your opinion as a means of ascertaining validity of The Bible. That's ridiculous.

4. You're making huge leaps here. You're aware that our sun is not the source of all the light in the universe right? That our sun is just a star, and fairly small one at that. Yes, the sun was created after the initial appearance and definition of light. You're correct. What's your point? I'm not a literal 7 day creationist. This process took years(to put it lightly). And it's condensed into 7 days, for the sake of effectively telling the story of the creation of all things.

5. Again, I don't know how you can fault the for not mentioning specific animal species that happened to be extinct by the time of writing? It's not a encyclopedia of all creation. The people of the time classified things in a far different manner than we do now. Are they wrong for doing so?

Again, you're ridiculing them for being a people in a time and place where science wasn't a part of their culture like it is ours.

6. What do you mean 'shows no proper knowledge'? Of what exactly? I believe that human beings are unique. That we are a specific Creation of God. I use to believe that we evolved from australopithecines but the more I dove into micro/macro-evolution and the intricacies and wonder that is DNA and the lack of any evidence in the fossil record of human beings in the middle of macro-evolutionary changes the more I became certain that we are distinguished in the universe.

I know that God is like nothing we can even imagine. His full Glory is so sick. Far beyond anything we can we comprehend with our human senses. He's the creator of the universe! He's not someone/something we can intellectually understand his/it's entirety.(It took me a long time to get to this fact). He can only be experienced. It's a heart thing not a head thing.

While your question is a legitimate one (eyes/hands/feet) it's reductionist in it's essence. You expect that you can understand what it means to be created in his image. Why doesn't God have these features? Because he doesn't need them. Why do you need ears to hear sounds when you're the creator of sound in the first place? Why do you need physical eyes when you're the source of all light in the universe?

You said that what you wrote has logic and reasoning to it. It absolutely does. But that logic and reasoning is built on the wrong foundation. Your logic is built on a misreading/misunderstanding of the creation poem.

Genesis 2

I'm starting to get the feeling that you don't actually read what I write. Or at least, fail to retain it. For one to properly read The Bible one needs to make sure they're aware of who the author is, who the receiver of the writing is, and when it was written. It's also a good idea to have a basic understanding of the cultures and customs of the time period. Remember, it was written at a specific point in human history, it's not a general book to the world. By people, for people. And God was actively involved in it's compilation. Taking those things into perspective you can put those contradictions to rest.

I don't blindly believe, I question everything. I hope you would know that about me by now.

Please point out some contradictions, I'd love to talk about them specifically. Let's avoid generalizations.

Your example is disturbing. Murder and rape? I think a less violent and more eloquent scenario could have be thought of. Again, you're coming up with some fictional scenario to try and disprove what I hold to be true. It's not very effective. Plus, it really just doesn't make much sense. I've read it a few times and still don't know what point you're trying to make about your believed falseness of God.

I think that about covers that. Let me know your thoughts.
What next?

Take care dude,