The Big Bang (Genesis 1:2-3)

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: chr0naut

So god is telling us why he made the universe. Gotcha. Then why DID he make the universe? Because I still don't know after reading Genesis. Please tell me in your own words.

Perhaps you should consider more of the plan than the book of Genesis to answer that.

Genesis is a start, but by no means is it the entire Bible. A good next reference is to look at the concluding book, 'The Revelation of Jesus Christ' which thematically draws the Bible to a close.

From Rev 12:1 to Rev 22:21 the whole story is explained.

That doesn't explain why all the scientifically inaccurate metaphors needed to be used. You can say all of the above by just opening with "God created the universe and all the processes governing it. Eventually universal processes created Earth and all life on the planet. Through this humans arose and God was pleased. [insert rest of bible]" Much more succinct and doesn't take away from the message you outlined above.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: chr0naut

So god is telling us why he made the universe. Gotcha. Then why DID he make the universe? Because I still don't know after reading Genesis. Please tell me in your own words.

Perhaps you should consider more of the plan than the book of Genesis to answer that.

Genesis is a start, but by no means is it the entire Bible. A good next reference is to look at the concluding book, 'The Revelation of Jesus Christ' which thematically draws the Bible to a close.

From Rev 12:1 to Rev 22:21 the whole story is explained.

That doesn't explain why all the scientifically inaccurate metaphors needed to be used. You can say all of the above by just opening with "God created the universe and all the processes governing it. Eventually universal processes created Earth and all life on the planet. Through this humans arose and God was pleased. [insert rest of bible]" Much more succinct and doesn't take away from the message you outlined above.

The creation, as a subject in the Bible, only occupies 62 verses out of a total of 31,102 total verses. The Bible is not about the creation.

It is about God's plan to grant humans free will, to correct the consequences of that free will and in so doing, to raise humankind to a new level of existence.

In the process of doing this, God took on human form and limitations and allowed Himself in that human body to be tortured to death on our behalf. This was not because we had done anything that deserved it, it was purely motivated by His love for us and His desire that we should become something better.

The Bible goes on to describe the future state of humankind, one without discomfort, suffering or death, where every human need is met, one with perfect unity of thought, feeling and communication between all humans and Himself, where free will and autonomy are still valued.

a reply to: chr0naut

That still doesn't explain the usage of the inaccurate metaphors. Again, if the message isn't about Genesis, then the succinct explanation I gave should have sufficed. The creation isn't important remember?

originally posted by: chr0naut
I disagree that the Bible disagrees with evolution, genetics, geology and biology. What I believe does disagree is your narrow interpretation of what the Bible says and what these sciences suggest.

Let me give you just one example from your list: The "talking snake" bit.

The actual Hebrew word used in Genesis for the tempter is "nechash" which means 'the shining one'. There is no mention of a snake, it is an obvious allusion to a supernatural entity, both from the actual wording and contextually.

The whole 'snake' issue was a translational one. In other places in the Bible, it calls Satan "that serpent" or "dragon" which may well be a metaphorical description because it also describes Satan with human attributes.

The translators of the King James Bible used the word snake because it seemed apt to them. They probably also intended 'a supernatural being' to be the inference of their translation, too. They would, most likely, have little actual exposure to any live snake and so were most likely to understand a snake as something legendary and less biological.

Let's pretend you are right and the word "snake" is a mistranslation, just like "unicorn" and countless other things. Why do the churches still all act like these stories are dead accurate? The deeper we investigate these texts, the more and more differences from the originals we find. Why are the American translations so poor and even after knowing they are wrong, they still use the wrong words? It's not just King James version either. Pretty much all versions mention the snake or serpent.

What about the rest of my list? The only thing you can point out is talking snakes? The biblical creation account still conflicts with the countless other things I posted... plus the whole magic thing.... Sorry but you have to do better than that. It's obvious Ray isn't even attempting to debate my posts anymore, hopefully he's seen the error and fallacies of his arguments.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Science can tell us how things occurred, but as an expositor of the reason why they occurred, it is useless. Only theology and philosophy can address such questions.

Science is certainly not useless, regardless of whether or not we know "WHY" something occurred. Science is about learning how things work and applying it to our daily lives. It is VERY useful even if we NEVER find out if there is answer to "why".

Only theology and philosophy can GUESS at the answers. They don't actually answer them. Science isn't about guessing, so if it can't answer a question, the answer remains unknown.

a reply to: Barcs

Saying I haven't responded to you over and over doesn't change the fact that I have and you simply don't understand...going off on tangents about off topic subjects are simply being dismissed. Start another thread about Jonah if you want.

a reply to: Astyanax

So the dozens of theologians and scholars who were sourced are wrong? Because you said so?

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Barcs

Saying I haven't responded to you over and over doesn't change the fact that I have and you simply don't understand...going off on tangents about off topic subjects are simply being dismissed. Start another thread about Jonah if you want.

So your response to my list of contradictory science to the bible is where? It's funny how you selectively ignore certain points when they go against your claims. I didn't even put Jonah on the list, but you seem to think I did. You may want to actually read my responses in their entirety. If I wanted to post a list of things that conflict with the entire bible, it would be 3 pages long. Since we're just talking genesis, Jonah is kind of irrelevant.

I understand your responses, which is why I consider them bunk. The creation account conflicts with the 4 fields of science I mentioned, and the numerous aspects on the list. If you are suggest that it is wrong, by all means, show me the evidence that suggests otherwise. You said that the biblical creation account conflicts with no science. You were wrong. Time to move on.

So the dozens of theologians and scholars who were sourced are wrong? Because you said so?

Philosophy doesn't over ride science. It is basically educated guessing.

a reply to: raymundoko

So the dozens of theologians and scholars who were sourced are wrong? Because you said so?

Yes, that's exactly right. I have science on my side, and I couldn't care less what a bunch of greybeards with an agenda have to say about it. The splashing sound of a floundering faith-based argument is clearly audible over the interwebs.

Now if you had some falsifiable evidence for your views, you might just get my attention. But since it's all a matter of 'reading comprehension' and going back to the original texts, we shan't be having any of that, shall we?

And by the way, just why do we have to go back to the original texts? Are all translations of Genesis equally inept? Couldn't God have inspired better translators, or made the ones he had translate better?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: chr0naut

That still doesn't explain the usage of the inaccurate metaphors. Again, if the message isn't about Genesis, then the succinct explanation I gave should have sufficed. The creation isn't important remember?

Could you please provide me with an example of an accurate metaphor? Surely a metaphor describes something by comparison to something else and therefore is not "accurate" by definition.

I would argue that among explanations of creation, the Judaeo-Christian one accords the most closely with modern scientific thought in that regard. Here's a Wikipedia link if you wish to compare creation accounts.

In the Biblical Genesis account, only supernatural beings do supernatural things. Humans and animals are just humans and animals.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Barcs

Saying I haven't responded to you over and over doesn't change the fact that I have and you simply don't understand...going off on tangents about off topic subjects are simply being dismissed. Start another thread about Jonah if you want.

So your response to my list of contradictory science to the bible is where? It's funny how you selectively ignore certain points when they go against your claims. I didn't even put Jonah on the list, but you seem to think I did. You may want to actually read my responses in their entirety. If I wanted to post a list of things that conflict with the entire bible, it would be 3 pages long. Since we're just talking genesis, Jonah is kind of irrelevant.

I understand your responses, which is why I consider them bunk. The creation account conflicts with the 4 fields of science I mentioned, and the numerous aspects on the list. If you are suggest that it is wrong, by all means, show me the evidence that suggests otherwise. You said that the biblical creation account conflicts with no science. You were wrong. Time to move on.

So the dozens of theologians and scholars who were sourced are wrong? Because you said so?

Philosophy doesn't over ride science. It is basically educated guessing.

One could counter that if you could describe Philosophy in that way, you could apply the same description to Science.

Educated guessing.

a reply to: chr0naut

I'm not trying to find the most accurate Creation myth to believe. I'm trying to find a Creation myth that actually tells a true account of what happened. As much as I dislike using metaphors to tell a literal account, you can certainly be accurate with them. The bible lists things being created out of order. I don't care what kind of metaphor you claim, THAT is inaccurate. If this book is truly divinely inspired then at the very least the order of events should be accurate. Instead it looks like some guy staring at the sky his whole life just made up a story that sounded plausible.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut
I disagree that the Bible disagrees with evolution, genetics, geology and biology. What I believe does disagree is your narrow interpretation of what the Bible says and what these sciences suggest.

Let me give you just one example from your list: The "talking snake" bit.

The actual Hebrew word used in Genesis for the tempter is "nechash" which means 'the shining one'. There is no mention of a snake, it is an obvious allusion to a supernatural entity, both from the actual wording and contextually.

The whole 'snake' issue was a translational one. In other places in the Bible, it calls Satan "that serpent" or "dragon" which may well be a metaphorical description because it also describes Satan with human attributes.

The translators of the King James Bible used the word snake because it seemed apt to them. They probably also intended 'a supernatural being' to be the inference of their translation, too. They would, most likely, have little actual exposure to any live snake and so were most likely to understand a snake as something legendary and less biological.

Let's pretend you are right and the word "snake" is a mistranslation, just like "unicorn" and countless other things. Why do the churches still all act like these stories are dead accurate? The deeper we investigate these texts, the more and more differences from the originals we find. Why are the American translations so poor and even after knowing they are wrong, they still use the wrong words? It's not just King James version either. Pretty much all versions mention the snake or serpent.

What about the rest of my list? The only thing you can point out is talking snakes? The biblical creation account still conflicts with the countless other things I posted... plus the whole magic thing.... Sorry but you have to do better than that. It's obvious Ray isn't even attempting to debate my posts anymore, hopefully he's seen the error and fallacies of his arguments.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Science can tell us how things occurred, but as an expositor of the reason why they occurred, it is useless. Only theology and philosophy can address such questions.

Science is certainly not useless, regardless of whether or not we know "WHY" something occurred. Science is about learning how things work and applying it to our daily lives. It is VERY useful even if we NEVER find out if there is answer to "why".

Only theology and philosophy can GUESS at the answers. They don't actually answer them. Science isn't about guessing, so if it can't answer a question, the answer remains unknown.

No doubt you are viewing things though the myopia of a science specialty but I can assure you that in life motive is vitally important.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: chr0naut

I'm not trying to find the most accurate Creation myth to believe. I'm trying to find a Creation myth that actually tells a true account of what happened. As much as I dislike using metaphors to tell a literal account, you can certainly be accurate with them. The bible lists things being created out of order. I don't care what kind of metaphor you claim, THAT is inaccurate. If this book is truly divinely inspired then at the very least the order of events should be accurate. Instead it looks like some guy staring at the sky his whole life just made up a story that sounded plausible.

But you are implying that science provides a single and unchangeable order of events.

For example, science once said that all elements heavier than Helium were the product of stellar nucleosynthesis. Now, we have theorized that Black Holes can cause nucleosynthesis as matter is accelerated and that this process has created most of the heavy elements we see, not stellar nucleosynthesis. This means that the creation of heavy elements preceded the existence of stars and began just after Baryogenisis, minutes after the Big Bang.

This change in sciences' description of the order of creation has only happened in the last couple of years. What other radical changes will we see over coming years with 'big science' projects like the LHC, RHIC, SKA, VLA, Advanced Light Source, NIF, SNS, and the EarthScope?

a reply to: chr0naut

Unless there is a black hole at the center of the universe, stars would have to have formed and then exploded for black holes to create the heavier elements before stars could create helium.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: chr0naut

Unless there is a black hole at the center of the universe, stars would have to have formed and then exploded for black holes to create the heavier elements before stars could create helium.

The Big Bang was a singularity.

a reply to: chr0naut

Right, but it was a singularity that did something no other singularity in the universe has done. Expand. So who's to say that it was spewing out heavy elements or not or that a black hole remains where it started expanding?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: chr0naut

Right, but it was a singularity that did something no other singularity in the universe has done. Expand. So who's to say that it was spewing out heavy elements or not or that a black hole remains where it started expanding.

The singularity itself didn't expand, the space-time it spawned did. From what we know of physics after the Big Bang,it is highly likely that a super-super-massive black hole is remnant.

a reply to: chr0naut

Also possible. Since we don't know where the center of the universe is, we can't say one way or the other though. But regardless of what we ultimately end up finding out about this, that doesn't make your point about changing order of things correct. There are many things in the creation account that are out of order that we know what order were created. New science is likely not to change that account unless all of science is wrong, which I doubt.

a reply to: chr0naut

it was purely motivated by His love for us and His desire that we should become something better.

His motivation for sending a global flood to wipe out nearly all of Humankind was purely from a position of love as well?

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: chr0naut

it was purely motivated by His love for us and His desire that we should become something better.

His motivation for sending a global flood to wipe out nearly all of Humankind was purely from a position of love as well?

No, I suspect that was to save us from a cross species plague.

Originally designed as a way to increase human intelligence by re-purposing emotional centers in the brain as additional cognitive function but the retrovirus carrying the gene therapy escaped into the wild and threatened all life on earth.

It also amplified psychopathy in humans.

Consider the scope of a planet wide genocide and how inappropriate it would be as a solution to mankind whose every thought was evil, all the time. Something bigger was obviously going on.

Then consider the whole Nephilim bit followed by Noah being "perfect in all his generations".