Ancient Domains Of Mystery, forum overview / General / Creationism and Original Sin
| Online users ( Unknown) |
| Application object not working properly at the moment, no clue who is online... * Numbers in parentheses are the number of minutes since the user last loaded a page. Logged-in users time out after 40 minutes (unless they manually log out), lurkers and anonymous posters after 20. |
This thread is 2 pages long.
| Go to page 1 2 |
|
Caladriel Registered user ReGiStErEd UsEr Last page view: 4700 days, 34 minutes and 32 seconds ago. |
If you want to read what lead to this, read page 2 of the Religion and all that jazz thread. Would it be possible to keep responses to 20 lines or less? [Edited 1 time, last edit on 1/30/2002 at 15:07 (GMT -5) by Caladriel] |
||
|
Caladriel Registered user ReGiStErEd UsEr Last page view: 4700 days, 34 minutes and 32 seconds ago. |
Jan Iridia, and anybody else: My take on Big Bang vs. the book of Genesis is that the Book of Genesis should not be taken literally. I would take from both your arguments. We have evidence of the Big Bang, but the Bible says that God created the world in 7 days. However, the Bible also says that a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as a day. I take this to say that God is beyond time. The 7 days are not literally 7 days, but, rather, a way of breaking up existence into 7 sections. [Edited 1 time, last edit on 1/30/2002 at 15:08 (GMT -5) by Caladriel] |
||
|
Iridia Moderator on this forum YASD Last page view: 3758 days, 14 hours, 57 minutes and 2 seconds ago. |
That's a very popular view, second only to the normal six-day view and plain atheistic evolution. If you want to say Genesis is poetic, you can (though all the rest is in the style of a Middle Eastern history book). However, there are problems with that view (as there are with all others, 6-day creation and atheistic evolution included): The order things were created in does not correspond with the order the theory of evolution takes, most notably plants on day three and the sun and moon on day four. You would have to say it's a completely allegorical (poetic) story that only serves to give God the credit for setting evolution into motion. Then of course there's the problem of the account mentioning, for every day, something like, "And there was evening and morning, the third day." The mention of "evening and morning", plus the numerical adjective, seems to indicate that the writer meant 24-hour days. And the classic argument that if God used evolution (which proceeds through death), and death is caused by Adam's sin, then death existed before its cause could have existed. The evidence seems to point to an old universe and a young Earth. But consider something: The Earth was created fully functional, with adult trees and adult animals and adult people. It seems likely to assume that the universe also was created in a fully functional state, with the "appearance of age." It would have spelled death for the Earth to have been created in a universe only, say, a billion years old. I will admit that there is no physical evidence for such a view, but then one must take into account the absence of evidence for biological evolution on Earth and the evidence of completion, but not age, in the Solar System (e.g., the moon dust problem, the rings of Saturn, the Uranus system). Either view credits God with the existence of the universe. In essence that is the important thing: Is there a God, and did He reveal himself to us? Creationism, and theistic evolution, says yes. Die Gedanken sind Frei |
||
|
Caladriel Registered user ReGiStErEd UsEr Last page view: 4700 days, 34 minutes and 32 seconds ago. |
Iridia: Evolution vs. Creation: You said in the Religion and all that Jazz thread that you do not believe in evolution because it requires [physical] death. You don't think God would incorporate [physical] death into his design for the universe, before original sin, because God is not cruel. (I am interpretting what you said. Correct me if I am wrong) The implication is that physical death is cruel/evil/wrong. Why do you think that physical death is cruel? I doubt that God views physical death as we do -- as something terrible -- Perhaps, from God's perspective, death is akin to a Grandparent in Massachusetts bringing their grandchild over from Oregon to attend Harvard (a college in Massachusetts) Is that cruel? Do you believe that there was no physical death before sin? [Edited 2 times, last edit on 1/30/2002 at 17:12 (GMT -5) by Caladriel] |
||
|
Caladriel Registered user ReGiStErEd UsEr Last page view: 4700 days, 34 minutes and 32 seconds ago. |
Re: Re: Genesis I had not thought of Genesis as 'Poetic.' I have always believed that the people who recorded Genesis were not able to comprehend the idea of the big bang and the millions of years of evolution that lead up to a proper vessel for the soul (a sentient being) so they explained things in terms that they could grasp. Later chapters are more in the realm of their understanding, so they become more exact. I am not aware of an absence of evidence for biological evolution. In fact, there is, apparently, a slew of evidence in favor of evolution (fossils showing a gradual change to different species, genetic drift showing common DNA between different species, to name two I know) What is this evidence of completion in the solar system? I am not familiar with Moon dust, Saturn's Rings and Uranus. BTW, I do give God credit for evolution. I give It credit for every rule of logic and physical law in the Universe. Evolution is a by-product of that Besides, who knows, maybe It loaded the dice to help evolution along. [Edited 6 times, last edit on 1/30/2002 at 17:47 (GMT -5) by Caladriel] |
||
|
Caladriel Registered user ReGiStErEd UsEr Last page view: 4700 days, 34 minutes and 32 seconds ago. |
P.S. Is there any chance of keeping responses to 20 lines or less? |
||
|
Jan Erik Administrator Last page view: 3 days, 9 hours, 56 minutes and 2 seconds ago. |
About the moondust (or lack therof): IIRC you are refeering to the fact that there are far less dust on the moon surface than one would expect if it had been around for as long as the Earth (supposedly) have... But there are theories that explain that. One goes roughtly like this: In the early days of the solar system when the Earth was just barely starting to cool off, it was hit by a massive object. This resulted in the planet getting a slight tilt, and lots of heavy elements beeng thrown up into orbit. While the earth then started to cool down again the orbeting debree slowly started to fuse together and form the moon. This process took quite a while so the moon in it's current state is substantialy younger than most other astronomical bodies. I'm not quite sure what the "problem" with Uranus and Saturn's rungs are, but they too need not have been there since day 1... There are all just theories naturaly (little hard evidence), but IMHO most of them seem more logical to me, given the way the universe seems to work, than instant creation. There seems to be a lot of chaos out there, it just seems strange to me that God would fill the Solar system with dangerous flying debree floating around everywhere, the Bible make him sould like an orderly guy... [EDIT: Wow nearly spot on 20 lines (unless you count the blank ones too)] Jan Erik Mydland HoF admin [Edited 1 time, last edit on 1/30/2002 at 20:44 (GMT -5) by Jan Erik] |
||
|
Vallak Registered user The Nightmare Elf Last page view: 8072 days, 20 hours, 52 minutes and 13 seconds ago. |
To add to Jans post, there could have been any number of meteors or such that slammed into the moon that would have caused a great amount of the dust to be ejected off the planet. Besides, how many places did they measure the depth of the dust in? They couldn't possibly have measured EVERYWHERE. "But then I sigh, and with a piece of scripture, Tell them that God bids us do good for evil. And thus I clothe my naked villainy With odd old ends stolen forth of holy writ, And seem I a saint, when most I play the Devil." -William Shakespeare, King Richard III |
||
|
Iridia Moderator on this forum YASD Last page view: 3758 days, 14 hours, 57 minutes and 2 seconds ago. |
Death before sin: Yes, I believe there was no physical death before man sinned. And yes, physical death is a result of the curse--here's a couple of verses. "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned...death reigned...For if the many died by the trespass of one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by...Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!...For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive...the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ." Romans 5:12-17 What this says is that when Adam sinned, death entered the world. When Jesus died, he fixed the sin problem so that we can be seen by God as righteous if we accept his sacrifice. In Heaven, "There will be no more death...for the old order of things has passed away." (Revelation 21:4). Die Gedanken sind Frei |
||
|
Iridia Moderator on this forum YASD Last page view: 3758 days, 14 hours, 57 minutes and 2 seconds ago. |
Jan: You said that "the people who recorded genesis were not able to comprehend [evolution] so they explained things in terms that they could grasp." I believe that the people who recorded Genesis were not the only ones involved in its making: God was the one who told them what to write, either the concepts or even the individual words. There is evidence for this in that the Old Testament refers to scientific knowledge that these people, with their limited technology, could not have known. For example, the Israelites' laws include many regulations dealing with disease. Instead of the primitive medicine of that day (which could require anything from a pilgrimage to the nearest temple to a poultice of dung for a cure), the Israelites' health laws required isolation, evaluation by symptoms, quarantine, designated health officials (the priests), and meticulous cleanliness--far advanced for people who could not possibly have known about germs. The Bible also mentions other scientific discoveries made only in the last centuries: Dinosaurs, the water cycle, ocean currents, the motion of the Pleiades, and even that matter is made of unseen subatomic particles. The Bible is not a science book, but when it talks about science it is accurate. I see no reason to allegorize the Genesis account just because it has become unpopular to believe in a personal Creator-God. Die Gedanken sind Frei |
||
|
Iridia Moderator on this forum YASD Last page view: 3758 days, 14 hours, 57 minutes and 2 seconds ago. |
Evidence for biological evolution: Despite what your biology teachers told you, there is none. Every "transitional form" found so far can be explained as something else by those who found it. We have found animals with different features, certainly, (like Archeopteryx, a bird with claws on its wings) but we have not found anything that is halfway between any form and another. Even while evolution is being taught in classrooms, a lot of scientists are shying away from it for lack of evidence and the sheer odds against it ever occurring. Look at it this way. For anything to provide an evolutionary advantage and that creature to survive, the system must be complete--like, say, the eye. A functioning eye must have rods, cones, iris, lens, cornea, optic nerve, and the proper brain circuitry to figure out the input. If one of these things is missing or defective, the whole system does not work. Let's say an early invertebrate has evolved, say, the lens. This is not a functioning eye; it does not present an evolutionary advantage, and the creature dies out. Even if only one of these components were missing or not quite evolved yet, the eye would not serve its owner any purpose. The odds that the eye, even in a simpler form, should simply pop into existence all at once, are zero to none. Natural selection as a mechanism for evolution is not quite enough, since it will also single out early mutants whose mutations only have the potential to be beneficial later on. And, if you were to say, "given enough time, anything could happen," you would be right--except that it would take more time--much more--than scientists estimate the Earth has even existed. Die Gedanken sind Frei |
||
|
Kayaman Registered user Last page view: 7734 days, 21 hours, 39 minutes and 16 seconds ago. |
Yeah there are some *nice* things in Genesis, like "Herb is for the service of man" |
||
|
Caladriel Registered user ReGiStErEd UsEr Last page view: 4700 days, 34 minutes and 32 seconds ago. |
Iridia: Re: Death before sin I have always interpretted those verses to mean "Spiritual," rather than "Physical," death. To use circumstantial biblical evidence, if Jesus uses the word death to mean spiritual death, then I assume the Genesis folk may have as well. Why do I think Jesus uses death in the spiritual sense? Jesus says that whoever believes in him shall not die, but, rather, have ever-lasting life. If Jesus meant "Physical" death, than he has already been proven wrong, since most of his disciples, who presumably believed in him, died physically. |
||
|
Caladriel Registered user ReGiStErEd UsEr Last page view: 4700 days, 34 minutes and 32 seconds ago. |
Re: Gensis Analogy: Just because [you and I believe that] God helped the writers of Genesis does not mean that they fully understood what they were being shown. (Personally, I think the same situation occurred when John -- or is it Peter -- recorded Revelations) I think God was more than satisfied with "On the first day, God said let there be light" rather than "God willed into existance an infinitely dense singularity which, lacking external gravitational controls, exploded outward allowing matter, space and time to come into being." Where does the Bible refer to sub-atomic particles and dinosaurs by name, rather than through interpretation? The closest I have found to advanced knowledge is Jesus' reference to epilepsy. Jesus heals a man saying that his seizures were not a demon, but, rather, something else. Even that is only an interpretation. It is a far cry from "an imbalance in the communication between the X and Y areas in the opposing hemispheres of the Brain." [EDIT: Wow, 20 lines including blank lines. :-P~ :-)] [Edited 11 times, last edit on 2/1/2002 at 15:21 (GMT -5) by Caladriel] |
||
|
Iridia Moderator on this forum YASD Last page view: 3758 days, 14 hours, 57 minutes and 2 seconds ago. |
It might be more plausible to say that Moses did not understand what God was telling him, or that God told him a greatly simplified version of things, if the days of creation were not listed with numerical adjectives (first, second, third, etc.) and if, for every day, there were not the phrase "And there was evening, and there was morning". (Jews perceived a day as sunset to sunset rather than dawn to dawn.) With these qualifier in the text, one can only assume that when God told Moses what to write, he meant 24-hour days. Either God was decieving Moses, Moses was writing down something God didn't say, or God actually DID use 24-hour days. The Bible doesn't refer to sub-atomic particles or dinosaurs by name. Neither concept had words to represent it when the Bible was written. But consider these passages: "Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you, and which feeds on grass like an ox...His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit. His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like rods of iron." Job 40:15,17,18 This is probably a description of a dinosaur. Job was probably one of the first books of the Bible written, so it's entirely likely that dinosaurs were still around then. (The Creationist theory for their extinction is that they did not survive the climate changes after the Flood.) And sub-atomic particles (at least the concept) are mentioned in this verse; which could refer either to creation from nothing, or the universe being made of energy/particles we can't see. "By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command...that what is seen was not made out of what is visible." Hebrews 11:3 Die Gedanken sind Frei |
||
|
Iridia Moderator on this forum YASD Last page view: 3758 days, 14 hours, 57 minutes and 2 seconds ago. |
Physical death: This verse is about Jesus: "He is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy." This could only refer to physical death, since Jesus was never spiritually dead, like humankind is. Since he is the "firstborn" among the dead, the first to rise, he has supremacy over everything--even death. Since the curse is still in effect over nature, we will all die, but it won't be permanent: "And if the spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his spirit, who lives in you." This is the Resurrection, at the end of time. Die Gedanken sind Frei |
||
|
Caladriel Registered user ReGiStErEd UsEr Last page view: 4700 days, 34 minutes and 32 seconds ago. |
Re: Advanced Knowledge Not everybody agrees that Moses wrote Genesis, but I won't nitpick. Whoever wrote it, by my belief, was inspired by God. I believe that God used visions, but even if God told them what to write, I would think that It would have taught them in terms they would understand. I do not call this deception. As I said, they would not have comprehended singularities, gravitational fields, etc. (IMHO) I'll concede that the dinosaur bit is an interesting interpretation, although I have heard 'tail' translated to be 'trunk.' (even after something is written down, it is vulnerable to change) I think sub-atomic particles is a bit of a reach. I'm afraid I don't see the sub-atomic interpretation. I take that to mean that God created the Universe -- this does not contradict my other beliefs, since I think God created the original singularity. |
||
|
Caladriel Registered user ReGiStErEd UsEr Last page view: 4700 days, 34 minutes and 32 seconds ago. |
Re: Physical Death: Hmmm, I'm afraid that the basis of your post doesn't really work with me, since I disagree that that verse "could only refer to physical death." I should have given this definition earlier. I consider spiritual death to mean being condemned to Hell -- or, at least, to die physically and not go to Heaven, since I am iffy about the Hell concept -- By this definition, Jesus did die spiritually, since, by my belief, he was condemned for 3 days. Does my interpretation of Genesis -- that there was physical death, but no spiritual death -- make more sense after reading this definition? Do you think that Christ refers to physical death when he says those who believe in him shall not die? Then how do you explain the physical death of some of his disciples? [Edited 5 times, last edit on 2/1/2002 at 18:42 (GMT -5) by Caladriel] |
||
|
Iridia Moderator on this forum YASD Last page view: 3758 days, 14 hours, 57 minutes and 2 seconds ago. |
Physical death--OK. Here's the way I see it... Look at this verse again: "And if the spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his spirit, who lives in you." "will give life to your mortal bodies" is very plainly a physical resurrection. Here is a description of it: "For the Lord himself will come down from Heaven, with a loud command...and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever." Jesus's sacrifice did not abolish physical death once and for all because the curse was still in effect on the physical world--it only ensured that for those people who believed in Him it would not be permanent, and not be the "living death" of Hell. When the curse is lifted (again, at the end of time) "there shall be no more death" (Revelation 21:4). Spiritual resurrection occurs when a person decides to trust Jesus; physical resurrection will occur in the future. If the curse did not cause physical death, then lifting it would not remedy physical death. Die Gedanken sind Frei [Edited 2 times, last edit on 2/1/2002 at 22:06 (GMT -5) by Iridia] |
||
|
Caladriel Registered user ReGiStErEd UsEr Last page view: 4700 days, 34 minutes and 32 seconds ago. |
There you go again with "This is plainly . . ." :-) You have taken this verse out of context, and I think that that changes the meaning. You might have the correct interpretation, but I do not believe so. The verse before says: Romans 8, verse 10: "But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness." In verse 10, he is plainly ( :-) ) not saying your body is physically dead. (If the receivers of his letter were physically dead, how could they have read his letter?) The metaphoric (or spiritual or poetic) use of the word "dead" extends to verse 11 which you sited. I'm not familiar with your rapture passage (which book, chapter and verse?) but, even out of context, I can read that to describe either spiritual or physical resurrection. [Edited 2 times, last edit on 2/5/2002 at 11:52 (GMT -5) by Caladriel] |
||
|
feilos Unregistered user |
In Gensis, I don't like God seen as walking around and such... When the God of later books were somewhat different... 1) God who lives on top of Mt. Sinai 2) God who is everywhere and knows everything... The way God asked Eve and Adam about eating the apple is dumb. It's like a parent asking a child not to eat a cookie from the forbidden cookie jar then sneaking around the corner and seeing their child take a cookie from the cookie jar, then making the child muddle themself in the truth...of their actions. Most christians, say that this book should be taken so literally... or else you will get things like birds and trees creating twice and such...I got that sorted out now. :) |
||
|
Tekki Registered user Last page view: 7346 days, 23 hours, 58 minutes and 16 seconds ago. |
I am no scholar, but this place answers your questions quite well: http://www.answersingenesis.org/ You feel a surge of power. Suddenly your extraordinary carrying capacity fails you. You are crushed by the tons of luggage you are carrying. You die... Go here when you are on the forum to chat about Adom! http://koti.mbnet.fi/adrakon/chat.shtml |
||
|
Caladriel Registered user ReGiStErEd UsEr Last page view: 4700 days, 34 minutes and 32 seconds ago. |
Feilos: My interpretation is that God exists everywhere. As such, It can manifest Itself physically wherever It wants: Eden, Sinai, your room, etc. As for God being 'dumb' in Its handling of the Fruit of Knowledge (which was not an apple, btw. I think scholars call it a Quint) do you really consider parents who use that method to be dumb? Personally, I think that they are trying to teach the child: to accept the consequences of his or her actions; to ask for help; etc. I cannot say for certain that most Christians read Genesis symbolically, but I do believe this to be the case. I can say that most of the Christians I know read it symbollically. Think on this: Every Christian who believes in the Big Bang or in millions of years of evolution leading up to humans must be interpretting Genesis as an analogy. [Edited 1 time, last edit on 10/14/2002 at 12:05 (GMT -5) by Caladriel] |
||
|
Tekki Registered user Last page view: 7346 days, 23 hours, 58 minutes and 16 seconds ago. |
What I don't get about the big bang...if you go all the way back, to where there was no matter, and no energy...how did it get created? It's physically impossible... You feel a surge of power. Suddenly your extraordinary carrying capacity fails you. You are crushed by the tons of luggage you are carrying. You die... Go here when you are on the forum to chat about Adom! http://koti.mbnet.fi/adrakon/chat.shtml |
||
|
Caladriel Registered user ReGiStErEd UsEr Last page view: 4700 days, 34 minutes and 32 seconds ago. |
As I understand it, all the matter and energy in the universe existed in a singularity. That is, it had mass, but no volume. Thus, it had infinite density (and gravity). Space did not exist, and, since gravity slows down time, time did not exist either. The Singularity was not created at any point in time because time did not exist. The singularity simply existed. Similarly, you cannot say where the singularity was, since there was no space. You can't even say that the singularity always existed, because "always" implies some measurement of time. My head hurts. |
||
|
Iridia Moderator on this forum YASD Last page view: 3758 days, 14 hours, 57 minutes and 2 seconds ago. |
Caladriel's right: The majority view of the Big Bang does state that time was created during the Big Bang, not pre-existent. However, the question still remains... this singularity would have had to have "come from" nothing("come from" implies cause-and-effect, but there seems to be no better phrase), time or no time... in other words, the statement, "There is something, rather than nothing: Why?" Die Gedanken sind Frei |
||
|
Iridia Moderator on this forum YASD Last page view: 3758 days, 14 hours, 57 minutes and 2 seconds ago. |
Re: Christianity & Evolution The majority of Christians believe in some sort of divine intervention model for origins. Some believe that God guided evolution; some believe in the 6-day view; some put a "gap" for long geological ages between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2; and others believe that there were short bursts of creation, in between long ages. The most popular view is probably the theistic evolution model, but not by much. The polls I've seen (of which I wish I had a link but didn't) usually have a close tie between "God guided evolution" and "God created in 6 days". I think that it probably depends on what group of Christians you spend time with. A lot of my Christian friends believe the 6-day view, probably because the Christians at my school tend to be more conservative. Die Gedanken sind Frei |
||
|
Lazy Cal Unregistered user |
I don't trust polls on such subjects. I think they are inherently skewed by the fact that the only people who bother to fill them out are those who feel very strongly about the subject. This leaves out people such as myself who wouldn't bother. I love discussing religion, but I have no interest in filling out polls on the subject. |
||
|
feilos Unregistered user |
the 6th day theory and all the flood type, earth only 50,000 years old things are psuedo-christain beliefs, its what they only got left after people like Darvwin, and science prove them wrong... |
||
|
Caladriel Registered user ReGiStErEd UsEr Last page view: 4700 days, 34 minutes and 32 seconds ago. |
Actually, I think creationism places the world at ~10,000 years old. I'm not sure I follow what you are trying to say. Are you saying that the literal biblical inerpretation is all Creationists will have left after (if) science proves that idea wrong? How will they have that left if it is proven wrong? Or are you saying that that idea has already been proven wrong, so all the Creationists have left are their beliefs? I don't think evolution, let alone the Big Bang, has been proven. These are the generally accepted theories, but they still remain theories. How has Creationism been proven wrong? |
| Go to page 1 2 |