Jump to content


Photo

Question For Creationists


  • Please log in to reply
71 replies to this topic

#21 The Ark

The Ark

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 78 posts
  • Age: 62
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Australia

Posted 11 February 2011 - 03:18 PM

Hi Ark,
That is not how I understand mutation and natural selection works.  How does your example translate into a real life example?  My understanding is that most mutations are both recessive and mildly negative.  These kinds of mutations would not be selected selectively as your heavy marble analogy suggests. 



I see the bad mutation as dying off and in most cases quickly. A bit like the marbles, 10 of the same type always get to the bottom and from there we pick one and decide what colour to paint it.

But in general I have difficulty with macro evolution.

I don't have a single view as such on any of this topic. For example, I don't completely discount the creationist/early earth view. However, I tend to view each option in isolation. For example, my view is that if start with the creationist/early earth view then worrying about finding evidence that supports the Ark or whatever is irrelevant because once you assume God not only exists but is fully involved then applying our logic is futile. In fact I see the creationists/early earthers trying to argue how the animals fitted on the Ark (such as the dinosaurs were babies and therefore small) being not only futil but weakening the story.

The bad design argument implicitly states that design is detectable. If so than I.D. is a valid POV.  Second, how do we know it is a bad design. 


Just the pain and agony animals need to go through to exist suggests the design has a few problems.

As well, if we are God's number one pet then why do we have all the insects that pests, disease etc. On the other hand we can say if there is ID then the Bible is true and the Adam and Eve eating the wromg fruit caused the problem as God said something like ....childbirth will be a big deal and your crops will be full of weeds etc...

The whole thing is very diffiuclt because it depends so much on your starting point. For example, if you started at the back of the Bible looking to see if the Bible made sense and there was a God then you would throw the Bible in the bin very quickly. But if start and Genesis amnd with the premise that God exists and you are only reading the Bible to learn his word then the Ark, parting of the seas etc and etc are not an issue.

To be 100% straight with you my view as the "most likely" literally changes each week or month. However, my views tend to remain much the same within an option, such as my views on evolutution.

My most common view is there are two or more God or gods involved. THe first one is what started the universe, cold be the pre Big Bang. Could be pre Big Bang is some really weird thing but whatever it is it has no realtionship with us, it just laid down the natutal laws for this universe. My second god or gods (and this could be the Bible god) is not unlimited horsepower. Could even be limited to our solar system. I often feel if we had another sense in addition to sight, hearing etc then the answers would be obvious. Imagine a very advanced group of aliens arrive on earth and they have never had the sense of sight. They would never be able to work out why these extinct humans fill structure of steel and concrete with very weak inserts, the windows. TV sets and computer monitors would be a complete puzzle to them.

Actually, if God of the Bible is limited in horsepower then things fit in a little better. He would need to tempt us to see what we do. Since He would not have all knowing knowledge then the trip to Hell or Heaven would not be pre destined.

I believe the Day in Genesis 1 is not a literal day.  How could a literal day happen without a sun or a moon which happens ~ day 4.  In day 7 God rested.  God does not need to rest, He is all omnipotent.  I also believe God transcends time, He sees the beginning and the end.  So what is a day to a being where time is irrelevant?


How much this type of thing stems from translation issues?

I believe that the evidence points to an old Earth.  I have a tough time with idea that God created the world with the appearance of age.  It sounds deceptive.

View Post


But He created Adam and Eve as adults. On the other hand if He is a limited God then he had to work with what was here but He arrived on the scene 6000 years ago.

One of the reasons I often think of a limited God is because of our situation and the chimpanzee. That bit extra we have over the chimp manifests in a way where the actual gap between us and the chimp is bigger than the gap between a chimp and a retarded ant. God might simply be a representative of a very advanced race of aliens.

Let me ask you a question. You have old earth mixed in with creationist and hence God. Is your god the Bible god. Is your belief in a god pushed along at all by a desire to have a god.

With your creationuist part of the equation do you see that as a hands on deal or just god or God kick starting life off and letting nature takes its course.

As you can see I am all over the place with the whole topic, blowing around like a feather in the breeze :)

#22 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 11 February 2011 - 03:23 PM

How could a literal day happen without a sun or a moon which happens ~ day 4. 

View Post


You don't need a sun or a moon for a day, you only need time. Also, you don't need a sun and a moon for a day, you only need light and a rotating Earth. If you go back and re-read Genesis 1:3, you'll soon find that there was light; and that light was separated from the darkness to create "Day" and "Night".

In day 7 God rested.  God does not need to rest, He is all omnipotent.  I also believe God transcends time, He sees the beginning and the end.  So what is a day to a being where time is irrelevant?

View Post


The sabbath was created for man, not man for the sabbath, Bruce. God does not NEED rest, but man does. Time for us DOES exist, God transcends time. God did did this for us, not for Himself.


I believe that the evidence points to an old Earth.  I have a tough time with idea that God created the world with the appearance of age.  It sounds deceptive.

View Post

Why, God created Adam and Eve with age... That's not deception, it's simply the way He said He did it. Just like He said He created everything in six days.

#23 The Ark

The Ark

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 78 posts
  • Age: 62
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Australia

Posted 11 February 2011 - 04:30 PM

You don't need a sun or a moon for a day, you only need time. Also, you don't need a sun and a moon for a day, you only need light and a rotating Earth.


Actually, if God existed as an unlimited power you don't need a rotating earth as God can have light (and warmth/cold) shine anywhere and any time with a click of the fingers.

#24 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 11 February 2011 - 05:02 PM

You don't need a sun or a moon for a day, you only need time. Also, you don't need a sun and a moon for a day, you only need light and a rotating Earth. If you go back and re-read Genesis 1:3, you'll soon find that there was light; and that light was separated from the darkness to create "Day" and "Night". 
The sabbath was created for man, not man for the sabbath, Bruce. God does not NEED rest, but man does. Time for us DOES exist, God transcends time. God did did this for us, not for Himself.
Why, God created Adam and Eve with age... That's not deception, it's simply the way He said He did it. Just like He said He created everything in six days.

View Post


Hi Ron and Bex,

Gen 2:2

2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work.

I agree that Adam and Eve were created with age, but not the earth. Did you think God put a false fossil record into the earth to give it an appearance of age? Or that the fossil record somehow simulates a few literal days in Genesis? The fossil record doesn't describe events that happened in days nor does it describe the evolutionist template IMHO.

Don't get me wrong. The Bible is God's word and I believe it. I just believe that God was talking about a period of time, not a literal day. That a day was used so that we would understand the general sequence in which events occurred. That way the fossil record makes sence to me.

As a side note about age not making sense. We age and our cells age with us. But when we have children, we join 2 old cells, they produce a new baby. How does that happen?



As a side note.

#25 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 11 February 2011 - 06:03 PM

I see the bad mutation as dying off and in most cases quickly. A bit like the marbles, 10 of the same type always get to the bottom and from there we pick one and decide what colour to paint it.

But in general I have difficulty with macro evolution.

I don't have a single view as such on any of this topic. For example, I don't completely discount the creationist/early earth view. However, I tend to view each option in isolation. For example, my view is that if start with the creationist/early earth view then worrying about finding evidence that supports the Ark or whatever is irrelevant because once you assume God not only exists but is fully involved then applying our logic is futile. In fact I see the creationists/early earthers trying to argue how the animals fitted on the Ark (such as the dinosaurs were babies and therefore small) being not only futil but weakening the story.
Just the pain and agony animals need to go through to exist suggests the design has a few problems.

As well, if we are God's number one pet then why do we have all the insects that pests, disease etc. On the other hand we can say if there is ID then the Bible is true and the Adam and Eve eating the wromg fruit caused the problem as God said something like ....childbirth will be a big deal and your crops will be full of weeds etc...

The whole thing is very diffiuclt because it depends so much on your starting point. For example, if you started at the back of the Bible looking to see if the Bible made sense and there was a God then you would throw the Bible in the bin very quickly. But if start and Genesis amnd with the premise that God exists and you are only reading the Bible to learn his word then the Ark, parting of the seas etc and etc are not an issue.

To be 100% straight with you my view as the "most likely" literally changes each week or month. However, my views tend to remain much the same within an option, such as my views on evolutution.

My most common view is there are two or more God or gods involved. THe first one is what started the universe, cold be the pre Big Bang. Could be pre Big Bang is some really weird thing but whatever it is it has no realtionship with us, it just laid down the natutal laws for this universe. My second god or gods (and this could be the Bible god) is not unlimited horsepower. Could even be limited to our solar system. I often feel if we had another sense in addition to sight, hearing etc then the answers would be obvious. Imagine a very advanced group of aliens arrive on earth and they have never had the sense of sight. They would never be able to work out why these extinct humans fill structure of steel and concrete with very weak inserts, the windows. TV sets and computer monitors would be a complete puzzle to them.

Actually, if God of the Bible is limited in horsepower then things fit in a little better. He would need to tempt us to see what we do. Since He would not have all knowing knowledge then the trip to Hell or Heaven would not be pre destined.
How much this type of thing stems from translation issues?
But He created Adam and Eve as adults. On the other hand if He is a limited God then he had to work with what was here but He arrived on the scene 6000 years ago.

One of the reasons I often think of a limited God is because of our situation and the chimpanzee. That bit extra we have over the chimp manifests in a way where the actual gap between us and the chimp is bigger than the gap between a chimp and a retarded ant. God might simply be a representative of a very advanced race of aliens.

Let me ask you a question. You have old earth mixed in with creationist and hence God. Is your god the Bible god. Is your belief in a god pushed along at all by a desire to have a god.

With your creationuist part of the equation do you see that as a hands on deal or just god or God kick starting life off and letting nature takes its course.

As you can see I am all over the place with the whole topic, blowing around like a feather in the breeze :)

View Post



Hi Ark,

This was a very interesting article.

You asked me earlier if I think man and dinosaur could have co-existed. I do. Job describes something that could be a dinosaur.

Job 40: 15 -40

15Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.

16Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.

17He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.

18His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.

19He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.

20Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.

21He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.

22The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.

23Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.

24He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares

.

As far as God and the Bible goes. I believe God has all the omni's: All knowing, all powerful...

I also believe the Bible is the literal word of God. Sometimes God uses word pictures so we can understand, but the words are not to be taken literally. For example,

Psalms 91:4

4 He will cover you with his feathers,
and under his wings you will find refuge;
his faithfulness will be your shield and rampart.

God is not a chicken. I am not believe that God has feathers. It is a word picture of how he protects and cares for us.

I am not a deist. I do note believe that God created the world and forgot about it. I believe God is living and active in everything in history and in our life.

I wish like you do that he would not have pests, disease and hardships. I now understand why things doesn't look designed from your perspective. If I were designing things I wouldn't create mosquitoes or disease. I dislike being bit or sick. But God, In my humble opinion (IMHO), created hardships to improve our character and our character is eternal.

The last question you had: "Is your god the Bible god. Is your belief in a god pushed along at all by a desire to have a god. "

My God is the Bible God. God found me not the other way around. Before I was a Christian the Bible was just a book. Let me digress. I went to a Presbyterian boarding school in Utah (Wasatch Academy). We had to take a religion classes. One of the assignments was to read the 10 plagues in Exodus. The last plague is where the blood of the perfect lamb, without blemish or spot, was put over the doorway as protection from the last plague.

After reading those versus I had a real Holy Spirit experience. It is hard to describe but I had a rush of energy and understanding. I knew it was God and he helped me understand that the spotless lamb and his blood was like Jesus's blood covering our sins. I could see that God had planned from the beginning to have Jesus die for our sins so we could have passover from death and sin. I knew God was there helping me interpret that verse. I really felt I met God that day.

I didn't mean to get preachy. I am trying to have a conversation and be real with you just as you have been real with me.

God Bless,

Bruce

#26 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 12 February 2011 - 04:33 AM

Actually, if God existed as an unlimited power you don't need a rotating earth as God can have light (and warmth/cold) shine anywhere and any time with a click of the fingers.

View Post


True, but in Genesis He (God) said what He did. And He said he separated the night from the day. Also, He said He spoke it. He didn't say anything about clicking His fingers.

#27 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 12 February 2011 - 04:44 AM

Hi Ron and Bex,

Gen 2:2

2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work.

I agree that Adam and Eve were created with age, but not the earth.  Did you think God put a false fossil record into the earth to give it an appearance of age?  Or that the fossil record somehow simulates a few literal days in Genesis?  The fossil record doesn't describe events that happened in days nor does it describe the evolutionist template IMHO.

Don't get me wrong.  The Bible is God's word and I believe it.  I just believe that God was talking about a period of time, not a literal day.  That a day was used so that we would understand the general sequence in which events occurred.  That way the fossil record makes sence to me.

As a side note about age not making sense.  We age and our cells age with us.  But when we have children, we join 2 old cells, they produce a new baby.  How does that happen?
As a side note.

View Post


Indeed Bruce; but what you "believe", and what Genesis says, are obviously two different things. Further, the literary style of Genesis concludes 6 actual, literal days, regardless of your opinion or "beliefs". And to extend this out even further; a "day" is a "period of time".

Also, your -->interpretation<-- of the "fossil record", sans the majority of facts needed (that we do not have) to draw any actual conclusions, makes your "understanding" little more than opinion (i.e. not fact).

#28 The Ark

The Ark

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 78 posts
  • Age: 62
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Australia

Posted 12 February 2011 - 07:07 AM

Hi Ark,

This was a very interesting article.


Bruce, do mean what I wrote?

You asked me earlier if I think man and dinosaur could have co-existed.  I do.  Job describes something that could be a dinosaur.


I have seen the Job stuff as I posted on the thread about dinosaurs and man coexisting, it is interesting. As someone who has had a life long interest in reptiles and dinosaurs (and that produces spin off to mammals) I certainly don't think Job book is referring to the Nile crocodile. With what could be a sauropod and because of reference to "cedar" and the tail, as opposed to the tail of an elephant. my limited understandings is perhaps a translation issue with "cedar"

But even so, I think if dinosaurs coexisted with man then history documents would be full of them.


As far as God and the Bible goes.  I believe God has all the omni's:  All knowing, all powerful...

I also believe the Bible is the literal word of God.  Sometimes God uses word pictures so we can understand, but the words are not to be taken literally.  For example,

Psalms 91:4

4 He will cover you with his feathers,
and under his wings you will find refuge;
his faithfulness will be your shield and rampart.

God is not a chicken.  I am not believe that God has feathers.  It is a word picture of how he protects and cares for us. 


Bruce, the question I tend to have arise is if God is the unlimited horsepower then He would not need parables and the like to convey a message. Because a salesman is a limited "human" he has to try and develop the best way to communicate with the prospect.........but that would not be necessary if he had the big unlimited horsepower.

In fact this sort of thing always drags me back to the position that God is a limited horsepower. Let me expalin for a moment. I have absolutley no doubt that there is "something" above us..call it what you will.....but it continues to appear as limited.

I am not a deist.  I do note believe that God created the world and forgot about it.  I believe God is living and active in everything in history and in our life.


But do you think it is possoble that what you or I see as God is the limited power, not the univesre creator.

As a side note, I am seeking information/views, not on about debating points in the plus or minus.

I wish like you do that he would not have pests, disease and hardships.  I now understand why things doesn't look designed from your perspective.  If I were designing things I wouldn't create mosquitoes or disease.  I dislike being bit or sick.  But God, In my humble opinion (IMHO), created hardships to improve our character and our character is eternal.


I have no issue with "created hardships to improve our character and our character is eternal." However, it is one more thing that to me indicates a god of limited horsepower.

Bruce, I feel you would be similar to me and of course many others in the sense that you "experience" what I call the 'outside force". We experience it enough and in a way to rule out coincidence.

I suspect you would also agree that "non believers" can and do remove themselves from the 'helping hand" that often comes when least expected. But this also suggests to me that God is limited. Is there something in the Bible where we were made in His image? If so, that is like He is compared to us like us compared to the chimpanzee.

I guess what I am trying to say is that you, me, Ron and others get the same messages and experiences, know 100% it is not coincidence but where we differ is how we extrapolate from the experiences. For me it adds up to a god with limited horsepower, like the branch manager.



The last question you had:  "Is your god the Bible god. Is your belief in a god pushed along at all by a desire to have a god. "

My God is the Bible God. God found me not the other way around.  Before I was a Christian the Bible was just a book.  Let me digress. I went to a Presbyterian boarding school in Utah (Wasatch Academy).  We had to take a religion classes.  One of the assignments was to read the 10 plagues in Exodus.  The last plague is where the blood of the perfect lamb, without blemish or spot, was put over the doorway as protection from the last plague. 

After reading those versus I had a real Holy Spirit experience.  It is hard to describe but I had a rush of energy and understanding.  I knew it was God and he helped me understand that the spotless lamb and his blood was like Jesus's blood covering our sins.  I could see that God had planned from the beginning to have Jesus die for our sins so we could have passover from death and sin. I knew God was there helping me interpret that verse.  I really felt I met God that day.

I didn't mean to get preachy.  I am trying to have a conversation and be real with you just as you have been real with me.

God Bless,

Bruce

View Post


Bruce, I know what you mean. We are all getting a different message or experience.

My best shooting mate is an athiest, not a hard liner. In fact in reality he is not a true atheist, mainly atheist with God/Bible. But he often says to me something along the lines of......you are into numbers, make data bases etc and I am can't even do Exel, what do you see that I don't see.....

As a side note. I don't believe there are any true atheists. I think they adopt a position that is against their inner belief. They are often people stuck in a corner and hate the "personality/spiritual" that more often that not brings in the business or funding and hence the income.

#29 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 12 February 2011 - 10:11 AM

Indeed Bruce; but what you "believe", and what Genesis says, are obviously two different things. Further, the literary style of Genesis concludes 6 actual, literal days, regardless of your opinion or "beliefs". And to extend this out even further; a "day" is a "period of time".

Also, your -->interpretation<-- of the "fossil record", sans the majority of facts needed (that we do not have) to draw any actual conclusions, makes your "understanding" little more than opinion (i.e. not fact).

View Post


Ron,

A day is a period of time. And God has feathers- Psalms 91:4 and God rested. The Bible paints word pictures all the time. So what is a literal day to God before there was a sun an moon?

Gen 1:1

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.


This is day 1. How much time transpired here? The big bang happened, then the earth was formless and void. We know this did not happen in a literal day.

Gen 1:14-19

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so.6 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.


God created light a second time. This is the sun and the moon. This was to mark time- days and years.

The point is that it was day 4 before a day was marked as a measurement of time. This is what the Word states. A literal day could not be a literal day until day 4.

As for the fossil record, we know that time frame from Cambrian to man was longer than a literal day. This is not an opinion or a belief.

When the facts don't line up with Scripture I find that my interpretation of what the Scripture states was wrong. Scripture is never wrong. A day to God does not have to be a literal day - especially before there was a sun and a moon to mark time.

#30 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 12 February 2011 - 11:25 AM

Bruce, do mean what I wrote?
I have seen the Job stuff as I posted on the thread about dinosaurs and man coexisting, it is interesting. As someone who has had a life long interest in reptiles and dinosaurs (and that produces spin off to mammals) I certainly don't think Job book is referring to the Nile crocodile. With what could be a sauropod and because of reference to "cedar" and the tail, as opposed to the tail of an elephant. my limited understandings is perhaps a translation issue with "cedar"

But even so, I think if dinosaurs coexisted with man then history documents would be full of them.
Bruce, the question I tend to have arise is if God is the unlimited horsepower then He would not need parables and the like to convey a message. Because a salesman is a limited "human" he has to try and develop the best way to communicate with the prospect.........but that would not be necessary if he had the big unlimited horsepower.

In fact this sort of thing always drags me back to the position that God is a limited horsepower. Let me expalin for a moment. I have absolutley no doubt that there is "something" above us..call it what you will.....but it continues to appear as limited.
But do you think it is possoble that what you or I see as God is the limited power, not the univesre creator.

As  a side note, I am seeking information/views, not on about debating points in the plus or minus.
I have no issue with "created hardships to improve our character and our character is eternal." However, it is one more thing that to me indicates a god of limited horsepower.

Bruce, I feel you would be similar to me and of course many others in the sense that you "experience" what I call the 'outside force". We experience it enough and in a way to rule out coincidence.

I suspect you would also agree that "non believers" can and do remove themselves from the 'helping hand" that often comes when least expected. But this also suggests to me that God is limited. Is there something in the Bible where we were made in His image? If so, that is like He is compared to us like us compared to the chimpanzee.

I guess what I am trying to say is that you, me, Ron and others get the same messages and experiences, know 100% it is not coincidence but where we differ is how we extrapolate from the experiences. For me it adds up to a god with limited horsepower, like the branch manager.
Bruce, I know what you mean. We are all getting a different message or experience.

My best shooting mate is an athiest, not a hard liner. In fact in reality he is not a true atheist, mainly atheist with God/Bible. But he often says to me something along the lines of......you are into numbers, make data bases etc and I am can't even do Exel, what do you see that I don't see.....

As a side note. I don't believe there are any true atheists. I think they adopt a position that is against their inner belief. They are often people stuck in a corner and hate the "personality/spiritual" that more often that not brings in the business or funding and hence the income.

View Post

Hi Ark,


I know you want my belief and opinion. You are not here to debate. This particular board wants your opinion to be backed up with facts. I am providing my opinion because you are searching and inquisitive about other peoples world views. So I am not it debate mode. (Moderators- I am asking for some leeway.)

I don't know whether the Behemoth in Job is a dinosaur. It could be. Whether dinosaurs lived with man or not does not matter to me. I can live with either scenario.

I really don't understand your opinion about a limited God. But I think you are saying that God would do it differently if he were all powerful.

Stating that "God would not need parables and the like to convey a message."

I believe that God wants our heart which involves both the spirit and intellect. A parable makes us think and work through the issues. IMO when we work through issues they stick, while something that is just given to us for free has little value. So parables may not be a fast way to learn, but they do engage us on both the intellectual and spiritual level.

God made us free where we can choose to accept him or reject him. A more effective way to communicate to us is limit our choices or make us like robots where we have no choice. But God wants our heart and this has to be given freely. The process of gaining our hearts may not be efficient from our POV but it is done without coercion.

IMHO the process he chose to communicate to us does not speak to Gods being limited, rather to him being compassionate and wanting our choice to accept Him to be freely given.

I suspect you would also agree that "non believers" can and do remove themselves from the 'helping hand" that often comes when least expected. But this also suggests to me that God is limited. Is there something in the Bible where we were made in His image? If so, that is like He is compared to us like us compared to the chimpanzee.

I am not sure what you mean by "helping hand". But I give a stab at it. It is amazing to me that God wants us to pray for other people. Or that God wants us to be proactive in helping others - both spiritually and physically. Why would an all powerful God need us to do anything? He doesn't need us and he certainly could do a better job than we could. It is a mystery that God wants us involved, or that His will is carried out with fallible humans. This is interesting scripture verse along those lines: Abraham is negotiating with God about Sodom. This speaks to how God wants us involved in his plan.

Gen 18:16-33

Abraham Pleads for Sodom

16 When the men got up to leave, they looked down toward Sodom, and Abraham walked along with them to see them on their way. 17 Then the LORD said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do? 18 Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him.[a] 19 For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing what is right and just, so that the LORD will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him.”
20 Then the LORD said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.”

22 The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the LORD.[b] 23 Then Abraham approached him and said: “Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare[c] the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? 25 Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?”

26 The LORD said, “If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake.”

27 Then Abraham spoke up again: “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, 28 what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five people?”

   “If I find forty-five there,” he said, “I will not destroy it.”

29 Once again he spoke to him, “What if only forty are found there?”

   He said, “For the sake of forty, I will not do it.”

30 Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?”

   He answered, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.”

31 Abraham said, “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?”

   He said, “For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it.”

32 Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?”

   He answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.”

33 When the LORD had finished speaking with Abraham, he left, and Abraham returned home.

So again, I don't see this as God being limited but rather as God wanting us to be involved in his master plan. Why he wants fallible humans to be involved in his infallible purpose is a mystery.


Is there something in the Bible where we were made in His image? If so, that is like He is compared to us like us compared to the chimpanzee.

Gen 1:27

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

Gen 2:6-7

6 but streams[a] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the LORD God formed a man[b] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

God created us in His spiritual image, not his physical image. God is a Sprint.

This is what distinguishes us from the other organisms in Gods creation.

#31 The Ark

The Ark

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 78 posts
  • Age: 62
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Australia

Posted 12 February 2011 - 12:45 PM

I really don't understand your opinion about a limited God.  But I think you are saying that God would do it differently if he were all powerful.


Why did he need to do temptation for testing. And from the Bible lines you posted above:

20 Then the LORD said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.”

Why did He need to go down?

IMHO the process he chose to communicate to us does not speak to Gods being limited, rather to him being compassionate and wanting our choice to accept Him to be freely given.


But an all powerful does not need any of this. The whole thing appears similar to a man and his pet dog or a man and his child.

I am not sure what you mean by "helping hand". 


What I meant was that when you work at fever pitch to achieve some impossible objective or other endeavours there is often a "helping hand" that arrives just in time to stop you falling of the cliff etc.

#32 The Ark

The Ark

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 78 posts
  • Age: 62
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Australia

Posted 12 February 2011 - 12:52 PM

On the subject of a "day being a literal day" where exactly is the writing in the Bible coming from.

For example, who wrote the following and where did they get the informatiion?

Gen 1:1

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

#33 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 12 February 2011 - 01:03 PM

On the subject of a "day being a literal day" where exactly is the writing in the Bible coming from.

For example, who wrote the following and where did they get the informatiion?

Gen 1:1

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

View Post


Moses wrote it as given to him by God. Hence, the "Word of God".

#34 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 12 February 2011 - 01:21 PM

A day is a period of time. 

View Post

Hmmmm… Are you agreeing here that a day is a period of time, or are you disagreeing about a day being a period of time?
Or, are you just being sarcastic?
I need to ask, because you are not being very clear here.

And God has feathers- Psalms 91:4 and God rested.  The Bible paints word pictures all the time.  So what is a literal day to God before there was a sun an moon?

View Post

You do understand the difference in literary styles here, do you not Bruce? One is a lyrical poetic type device, and one is not. Word pictures can be literal and metaphorical. And it isn’t terribly difficult to understand the different devices when they are used.
If you read Genesis (with attempting to add you millions of years to it) it’s not hard to see that God’s words says “And there was evening, and there was morning” = one day. By the way, thanks for posting Genesis 1:1 - 5, because it actually serves to prove the point:

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.” Genesis 1: 1-5

The flow from one through five is continuous with a beginning middle and end to the narrative. And, of course ending with “And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day” … Or the First Twenty-four period.

This is day 1.  How much time transpired here?  The big bang happened, then the earth was formless and void. We know this did not happen in a literal day.

View Post

You don’t “know” what did or didn’t happen, as you were not there and have sketchy information at best. Therefore you are only guessing what may have happened and attempting to posit it as fact. And, at this point I‘ll listen to God on the subject until you can either verify or discredit what God had Moses write.

#35 The Ark

The Ark

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 78 posts
  • Age: 62
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Australia

Posted 12 February 2011 - 01:24 PM

Moses wrote it as given to him by God. Hence, the "Word of God".

View Post


So not just inspired by God but dictated by God.

What about translation issues. Apart from individual words I was reading some time ago that one issue would be what we often call figures of speech such as 'it's raining cats and dogs"

As a side note I think with the Bible you either believe or you don't as opposed to thinking of it as just a rough guide etc.

#36 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 12 February 2011 - 02:23 PM

Interesting.  I don't wish to argue at all, as I was asking for opinions only, but I suspect that you will find this interesting, given your response, so I will merely present anthropology's current views and definitions, without espousing them as definitively true.  :P

First, dividing these animals into different taxa, as you rightly point out, is quite difficult, and there is lots of squabbling about it within anthropology: we argue about whether Paranthropus is its own genus or if it is part of Australopithecus, we argue as to whether habilis should really be Aust. or Homo, and we argue (quite intensly) over whether neandertaliensis is its own species or a sub-species.  However, the reason we do differentiate them at all is because of bodily morphology and brain size.  Australopithecus is a bit like an erect ape, with an ape-sized brain of ~450cc.  Paranthropus is heavier-framed and very slightly taller with thicker jaws, but with the same ~450cc brain that modern chimpanzees share.  The post-cranial skeleton of Homo(?) habilis is identical to that of an A. africanus; indeed, when we don't find skulls, we absolutely cannot tell them apart.  The brain of habilis is nearly twice as large, however, averaging ~720cc (this is the first increase in cranial capacity that occurs, and that is why habilis is so often grouped with Homo in spite of their australopithicine post-cranial skeleton...they straddle the line between Australopithecus and Homo so fundamentally that we just can't tell) Ergaster is represents the final major change in the post-cranial skeleton, with much shorter (proportionately) arms and a hairless, modern-statured body built for running rather than walking...an ergaster wearing a hood would not be detected if you saw him/her riding the bus near you.  Their brains were about 850cc, and the new cranial expansion was all in the areas directly related to speech, so they could talk, but because of the shape of their cranium (long rather than tall like ours) and the vocal tract, they would have been capable only of the sorts of sounds that our toddlers make, but at a deeper register.  Erectus looked just like ergaster, but had a brain of ~1150cc, still increasing the verbal areas of the brain.  Homo sapiens are more gracile than ergaster or erectus, our bones are not as thick as theirs, and our musculature is weaker (their long bones are slightly warped because their muscles pulled on them so hard), and our brains average a whopping ~1350cc, with expansion again occuring in the speech centers.  And our skulls (with the exception of neandertals) shifted to be oriented from the top to the bottom rather than from from front to back.  Now, we don't know what would have happened if a sapiens had actually bred with an ergaster, so we can only take educated guesses at where the species lines lie; we simply do the best we can.

As for the articles you posted...they are certainly interesting.  As for the Australopithicine jaw, that's surprising, and I have some questions about it, but they seem to be saying that H. sapiens didn't come from Au. Australopithecus.  Well, no one thinks that is the case.  Anthropologists currently hold that we came form Au. africanus, which we think probably held a cousin-like relationship to afarensis.  So it would still be surprising if afarensis weren't related.

View Post


I have done very little study in anthroplology. I have a few questions, if you don't mind. How do you know some of the smaller brained homo sapien etc. skulls aren't human children? Could some of them be midgetts, or dwarfs? Or if they weren't diseased?

Also, how many skulls and/or skeltons of homo sapiens are there? What other fossils have they been found with? Have they been found with marine creatures, because I know most fossils are marine in nature? Have any homos been found from limestone, or what kind of sediments have they been found in?

#37 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 12 February 2011 - 04:35 PM

Actually, if God existed as an unlimited power you don't need a rotating earth as God can have light (and warmth/cold) shine anywhere and any time with a click of the fingers.

View Post


Yes. Jesus once said "Father, to you all things are possible. If you can, may this cup pass from me. Nonetheless, not my will, but they will be done."


Just because God can, doesn't mean it's his will to do it that way.

#38 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 12 February 2011 - 04:48 PM

So not just inspired by God but dictated by God.

View Post


As I said "given to him by God"...


What about translation issues.

View Post


What translation issues?

Apart from individual words I was reading some time ago that one issue would be what we often call figures of speech such as 'it's raining cats and dogs"

View Post


Again, you'd have to be specific... All cultures have "figures of speech", but these have meaning as well.


As a side note I think with the Bible you either believe or you don't as opposed to thinking of it as just a rough guide etc.

View Post


Indeed.

#39 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 12 February 2011 - 05:46 PM

The Hebrew word for day in Genesis 1:1 is "Yom" which literally means 24 hour period. I don't know of any Hebrew scholar who would dispute this definition.

#40 The Ark

The Ark

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 78 posts
  • Age: 62
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Australia

Posted 12 February 2011 - 06:03 PM

What translation issues?
Again, you'd have to be specific... All cultures have "figures of speech", but these have meaning as well. 

View Post


I don't know and that's why I am asking you. I have read many times there are translation issues.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users