Atheists what is your proof?

Except that Hebrew treats the words for morning and evening with the same ambiguity, such as in "dawn of a new day". The link I provided earlier gives many examples of this.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I discussed this in a prior post as well. I believe the Genesis accounts of life spans weren't referring to individuals, but rather bloodlines. The theological implications of sin and the shortening of lives were invented much, much later in an attempt to explain the mainstream interpretation of the day, which was that they were in fact individuals who lived such great lengths of time.

I read The Silmarillion (which I believe includes Music of the Ainur) when I was 14, and it is indeed an excellent portrayal of what I am talking about - and in fact it was something that helped me understanding the role of evil in the perfection of God's creation in the first place.

And finally - developing new theories and interpretations regarding the meaning of a book is NOT ignoring it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The numbering, and the fact they had beginnings and ends, implies a regular day. Sorry to rain on your parade.

This was the entire point, that God could create everything in such a short time. Make it longer, and you miss the point. You can't apologise for everything without compromise or contradiction.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think it is exactly that, just a story.

It's not real, or true, it's just meant to convey a moral. People who think it's true miss the message. I think the same about most of the testaments. Good koans, bad history.

 

And btw time is relative and it always appears normal to the observer. Had you had a clock on at the beginning you could still count a 24 hour period and later relate the relative time to someone. So the notion its impossible is not correct, time existed from the very instant of the beginning even though the sun didn't, if say God was at the beginning, theoretically he could have had an absolute state of rest thus made his time run fast compared to every other frame of reference.. then later described the time as it passed to him not as to us, but in terms we understood.

I'm not saying I'm into creationalism I'm just pointing out you can use a little science to make the idea a speculation or basic research idea.. nothing more.

 

I believe. Thats my proof. Its exactly the same answer as given by those of a relgious bent. I say to people in the simplest of laymans terms that a 'good and kindly god' would not allow the things and the cruelty that exists on the planet today. The evil human kind has spawned is almost horrific in content. From SS guards throwing up babies to score points at the end of a bayonet to the child beater who kills in the cruelest possible terms the baby or toddler (liike Baby Peter here in the UK, or Brandon Muir). Thats complete cruelty and evil. NO god would tolerate such. Its impossible.

 

Except the bible was written by mortals, so when they said day, they meant 24 hour days. Stop apologising for this BS.

 

oh yes, that beautiful saying 'god moves in mysterious ways' and 'its gods will' - both born out of medieval ignorant priesthood. What a load of bunkum. God is the invention of the ignorant to explain the unexplainable.

 

Actually, those phrases are in the scriptures themselves, which predate medieval priesthood by centuries.

 

well, just proves a point does it not? When the bible tells us that Ezekiel went for a cabby in a flaming chariot it actually describes a ride in a flying machine, emphasis on the word machine. And he went to see the stars (unsure of exact description). But of course, to the writer, it was something godlike because it was the only way for them/him to describe such an occurence. I like to use the mental image of a shepherd, sitting on a Judean hilltop, watching his sheep and Mr Spock materialises in front of him, beamed down, with his pointy ears!! I know what the shepherd is going to tell people!

 

Crunchy Cat,

What's the point of "Assuming"?
Why wouldn't he be a real person?

The bible does not say that the flood covered the earth,
that is a mistranslation. The hebrew word used is eh-retz which means the land,
meaning the flood covered a particular part of the earth.

jan.

 

'yome' the word used to signify 'day', has various meanings
of lengths.
I think you just want to use 24 hour days, because it obviously contradicts
science.

jan.

 

Red Devil,

This is nature, to every action there is a subsequent reaction.
It's not a question of allowing.
A good and kindly god would make sure there is a way out of this
action/reaction scenario. Unfortunately people are doing their level
best to render that (God-consciousness) nonsense.

jan.

 

What if suffering was healed and evil was punished fairly? What if there is more to life and there is an ultimate justice for our unique freedom of choice when we make bad choices?

Would a just God want a bunch of robots or would he refine something that makes its own decisions? God can't win either way you can have complaints about it, however religious people simply trust god knows what he is doing.

Science believes nature does its thing kinda... so what both are acceptable and both should be respected so long as your religion isn't forced on me or oppressing to me in any way.

 

Earth at the time of Noah, if he existed at all, was centred on the Mediterranean. The Phoenicans and Egyptians had a better global knowledge, trading across the Atlantic, but, to Joe El Soap, it was their most immediate envoronment.

I do not subsctibe to the age old arguement that 'god made us in order to make up our own minds'

 

There is little point in engaging with these people on these subjects. They have their beliefs, and refuse to accept anything that might contradict them - including misinterpretations of biblical passages. They are everything they complain about in theists, and as such full of hypocrisy. You hit the nail on the head I think when you say they just want to use 24 hour days because it obviously contradicts with science.

Well said.

 

You are just trying to rationalize your belief in the literal truth of ancient mythology, no matter how ridiculous it is. If a day can mean anything you want it to mean, then the creation wasn't that miraculous, was it? You are giving it enough time for presently understood natural processes to work, thus eliminating the need for God as an explanation.

 

You are just trying to rationalize your belief in the untruth of the Bible, no matter how inarguable it is. If a day can only mean what you want it to mean, then the creation would be obviously false. You are restricting it to a time that would prevent natural processes from working, thus forcing a point you can call untrue.

See how your position is exactly what you are accusing theists of?

 

So let me get this straight.. The 'flood' only covers the land which leaves us plenty of sea and sky that wasn't flooded? Frankly I am unsure of your attempted point. Needless to say, the notion of a global flood isn't an invention of atheists but instead a taught understanding of christian theology.

Yes, 'yom' can be used to denote a day in the far flung future, (e.g "in that day..") but this does not apply to the usage found in Genesis which explicitly refers to a standard day. If nothing else, the arrival of morning and evening, (day 2 etc), establishes that fact.

Regards,