Six days or 14 billion years? How about both :D

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Krazysh0t
That is how the majority of people view the Bible in the western world. Ask a messianic Jew from Israel and they will find it odd that you are trying to pull literal Scientific data from the Genesis account.

That sounds like a argumentum ad populum fallacy. It's true because most everyone believes it. But I guess that is the best you can work with when you don't have any evidence that the Bible is true.

No where does the Bible imply this is how all women were made. Just the first. This would be God preforming a creation miracle imo. The poem is polemic aimed at the Egyptian Gods and that is why you'll see God use different modes of Creation in Genesis 1. Of course miracles are inaccurate with Scientific data that is why we call them miracles.

It doesn't have to imply that is how all women are made. Just the fact that one was made this way is scientifically inaccurate enough.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

That sounds like a argumentum ad populum fallacy. It's true because most everyone believes it. But I guess that is the best you can work with when you don't have any evidence that the Bible is true.

You misunderstood me. I was saying the view you presented is the majority view. My own would be the minority view.

It doesn't have to imply that is how all women are made. Just the fact that one was made this way is scientifically inaccurate enough.

Since when are miracles supposed to adhere to the normal rules of the universe. Child birth is mentioned in the Fall of man. So we know that God didn't intend for all humans to be made this way...of course you think the Bible is scientifically inaccurate if you are including miracles in that...

a reply to: AMPTAH

Nice post, AMPTAH - I'm not sure you're entirely correct (obviously, if I was I'd write best sellers and form a cult) but it certainly resonates with me.

And, well, 1500 years until He/They come back? I can live with that! As can my Great*60-grandkids!

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I wont go into it but in my thread the first five verses of Genesis 1 expounded. Because I believe there is a time period between verse one and two (not much recorded in the Bible about the period in between). so the earth is much older than some will admit.

Now I would not agree to billions but either one day or a thousand years.

The reason I feel that the earth and its uranium depletion rate is so high is because we do not know how to calculate "From Everlasting to Everlasting/Eternity". Our radio carbon is based on 24/7/364.3 not on eternity. God brought forth this material for the heaven from himself an eternal source that is why it dates to such a long time ago.

If we could know what the measurement of eternity is and then calculate our RC dating system to that we would get a true and accurate dating.

David said that a thousand years to God were as a day gone by and as a watch (3hours) in the night, and Peter said a day is as a thousand years.

Psalms 90:4 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.
2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

I wont go into it but in my thread the first five verses of Genesis 1 expounded. Because I believe there is a time period between verse one and two (not much recorded in the Bible about the period in between). so the earth is much older than some will admit.

That is the Gap Theory, and I think it holds weight. If something is wrong in the Math or something is fishy after I read his book then that would by my position on the text as well.

David said that a thousand years to God were as a day gone by and as a watch (3hours) in the night, and Peter said a day is as a thousand years.

Those are metaphorical statements to denote God's position outside of time, imo

a reply to: ServantOfTheLambWhile it is true David and Peter are using metaphorical statements, that does not negate the fact he is Eternal.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

I never said he wasn't haha.

a reply to: reldra

You either didn't read the article or you didn't understand it. Ever since I studied Einstein's theories of relativity and more specifically the implications of time dilation, this possibility occured to me.

It's nice to find out that the actual breakdown of the apparent expansion of the universe coincides with cosmlological estimates.

To sum it up. Where space is compressed as in a gravity well, time moves more slowly. As the universe expands and space necessarily stretches, time will move faster. This is all only if Einstein's theories of relativity are correct.

Contrary to popular belief, the atomic clock experiments do NOT prove time dilation, they merely prove that the oscillation frequency rate of an atom is influenced by gravity. They infer that Einstein's prediction of time dilation is correct.

Jaden

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

You have to also consider that the bible is not necessarily referring to the physical aspect of man every time it refers to man. Man has a soul, that is said to be what differentiates him from other creatures. I don't necessarily adhere to the belief that man is the only creature with a soul, but to assume that the bible is always referring to physical man is a misnomer IMO.

I've been of the notion especially when reading works from the Nag Hammadi library that much of the discussion of the creation of man is the creation of man as a spiritual being and that the garden of eden was a spiritual location that man was cast out of by being put into physical form.

Jaden

also, Eve was not the first woman, lilith was.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Except that science is necessarily designed to be specific, where as any religious text is designed to be metaphorical, broad and all encompassing, which is something that science fails miserably at. All that needs be done to illustrate this is to look at how contradictory that Newtonian physics and Quantum Mechanics are with each other.

Jaden

a reply to: Masterjaden

Science doesn't "fail" at trying to be metaphorical, broad, and all encompassing, it SPECIFICALLY sets out to not do that since doing so leaves too many gaps in explanations. The very fact that religion tries to do that makes it distrustful. What you did here is like accusing someone of failing at running when he goes out for a walk.

a reply to: Masterjaden

Lilith comes from the Gnostic works it is not a belief I hold. I believe man has a soul, but Genesis 2:10–14 lists four rivers in association with the garden of Eden: Pishon, Gihon, the Tigris, and the Euphrates. It seems to be talking about earth. Lilith is mentioned four times in the Babylonian Talmud, but it is not until the Alphabet of Ben Sira (c. 800s to 900s) that the character of Lilith is associated with the first version of Creation. I just don't see any reason to think it is valid doctrine.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Masterjaden

Lilith comes from the Gnostic works it is not a belief I hold. I believe man has a soul, but Genesis 2:10–14 lists four rivers in association with the garden of Eden: Pishon, Gihon, the Tigris, and the Euphrates. It seems to be talking about earth. Lilith is mentioned four times in the Babylonian Talmud, but it is not until the Alphabet of Ben Sira (c. 800s to 900s) that the character of Lilith is associated with the first version of Creation. I just don't see any reason to think it is valid doctrine.

I think calling Lilith Gnostic is erroneous as Talmud is not Gnostic but Jewish, and Lilith goes back to Babylon as an oral tradition that could have been gnostic in essence then but today it is just a part of Judaism. And Jewish Gnosticism is called Kabbalah but it is Kosher unlike the Christian gnostic tradition that is so similar.

It is a Gnostic type of teaching if you are a Christian but not if you are Jewish. Judaism has an open mind towards Gnostic type practices that Christianity calls demonic out of fear of anything that is enlightened.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

The reason for Lilith is that two creation stories were combined from two traditions and used as one. It leaves a discrepancy in that one account Man and Woman were created as equals and the second Man from dirt, Woman from man.

Lilith solves the "riddle" by oral tradition that taught of her as the first wife of Adam.

I don't see any reason take any of the stories literally and I don't think that the authors did either. Genesis' creation myths are Babylonian and Akkadian in origin and older than Judaism so why take any of it seriously or reject it?

Myths are myths.

a reply to: ZoeEleutheria

The reason for Lilith is that two creation stories were combined from two traditions and used as one. It leaves a discrepancy in that one account Man and Woman were created as equals and the second Man from dirt, Woman from man.

Or the one is simply a more detailed view of the creation of man...

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb
I fully agree

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: ZoeEleutheria

The reason for Lilith is that two creation stories were combined from two traditions and used as one. It leaves a discrepancy in that one account Man and Woman were created as equals and the second Man from dirt, Woman from man.

Or the one is simply a more detailed view of the creation of man...

If that was the case I would agree.

But more than two traditions combined to make the Bible and Genesis is no exception. The story is of Mesopotamian origins and had different versions which were united eventually and yes, this is the case with Genesis.

Two versions of one story were combined and Lilith is a product of that. It's just history.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Interesting for me as I traveled around the world I came across different creation stories. Hawaii Natives have one, American Indian natives have one, the Taubato/Palawan tribe in the Philippines has one, Tahitian and Indonesian tribes, have them A missionary friend of mine says a tribe in the Congo where he ministers also has one.

When you compare them with the Bible's version they have some similarities but differ in the first people. They are always the ones who founded their tribe. well that didn't take place until after the scattering of the people from Babel. so two things I see in these versions and that would include the Babylonian one is that 1)sin nature of man adding to the events, and 2, they are handed down by verbal tradition and that is where some errors occur.

Now God promised to preserve his words so when he had Moses write the book we call Genesis He first preserved it in an original to which Timothy is said to have a copy of at the time of Paul. And today we have one English version that is correct and accurate no need to go to a multitude of stories that only confuse. Just find the preserved word and believe it.

a reply to: AMPTAH

That's 7 thousand years of man time. That tells us the cycle of time for the seasons of man, when God does all the work when he plants man, fertilizes man with life experiences and dramas, and harvests man, totals 7000 years.

so it took god 7000 years for this cycle - that would explain that our gods were geneticists - seeding life on planets

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Interesting observation. The idea that the age of the universe is only relative to location and time period is nothing new. Even some atheist scientists have said the same thing concerning the problem of starlight travel. If God is such a weakling that it would take him 1 billion year to form the stars and planets and another 1 billion each to form sentient life, then that's not the real God of the Bible. God is not slow, or slack in his promises, so when God wants something done, if he wants something changed, he'll get it done within the twinkling of an eye.