This is why religious believers should pay very close attention to evolution.

reply to post by the illuminator

know one wrote about Jesus??? JOHN was an eye witness! many roman manuscripts RECOUNT Jesus Crucifixion before you start throwing silly posts willy nilly please think before you type

Which John would that be?

The one who supposedly wrote the "Gospel of John"? No, he wasn't an eye witness. I know, the 'traditional view' says it was John the Disciple, but that hasn't been the 'accepted view' since the end of the 18th century. The author was too Hellenized (it is written in perfect Greek) and too anti-Jewish to have been an "unschooled and ordinary" (Acts 4:13) contempory of Jesus. And it was written at least 70 years after the crucifixion.

The one who supposedly wrote "Revelations"? Nope, not an eye witness either. Again, I know the 'traditional view' holds that the author is the same as the Gospel. But the Greek is poor and the text is unstructured and not at all 'polished' as the gospel. Though it could have been written at about the same time as the gospel, it must have been by a different author.

John the Apostle would have been pushing the century mark by that time. So it wasn't him either.

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by the illuminator

 

know one wrote about Jesus??? JOHN was an eye witness! many roman manuscripts RECOUNT Jesus Crucifixion before you start throwing silly posts willy nilly please think before you type

Which John would that be?


The one who supposedly wrote the "Gospel of John"? No, he wasn't an eye witness. I know, the 'traditional view' says it was John the Disciple, but that hasn't been the 'accepted view' since the end of the 18th century. The author was too Hellenized (it is written in perfect Greek) and too anti-Jewish to have been an "unschooled and ordinary" (Acts 4:13) contempory of Jesus. And it was written at least 70 years after the crucifixion.

The one who supposedly wrote "Revelations"? Nope, not an eye witness either. Again, I know the 'traditional view' holds that the author is the same as the Gospel. But the Greek is poor and the text is unstructured and not at all 'polished' as the gospel. Though it could have been written at about the same time as the gospel, it must have been by a different author.

John the Apostle would have been pushing the century mark by that time. So it wasn't him either.

Actually John dictated it according to legend because he uh, had no eye's since they had been ordered burnt out. So that makes it more interesting since what he saw was "in the spirit".

reply to post by Loken68

Show me resource's that say mathematical formulas just don't enter into proving evolution.

Why would I do that? Why would I want to? If there were no such connection, then why would there be 'a resource' that would say so? All 'resources' would be simply silent on the subject. Your demand is facile.

Of course biologists use mathematics in their work, especially statistics. And there are formulas that describe how populations grow and how mutations spread through a population and many others.

But those examples (and hundreds others I'm sure) are used to describe one aspect or another of how biology works. None of them are a mathematical theorem that defines evolution the way E = mc^2 defines Relativity. They don't act to 'prove' evolution, they describe how different aspects biology in general and of evolution in particular work.

The spirals of a vine around a tree trunk, the positioning of leaves on a branch, the spirals of Nautilus shell, the seeds on a sunflower, all display the unifying mathematics of "The Golden Mean". That is not a proof of evolution, that is a description the natural world that biology seeks to explain.

I guarantee that when you do you will copy and paste from sites that are pro-atheist pro evolution. Show me neutral science, you can't.

Why do you have this hangup that science = atheism? It isn't and that is what the OP is trying to suggest. Have you not seen the polls that show that a majority of American scientists (of all disciplines) believe in God?

Have you not heard of Dr. Francis Collins? He was head of the Human Genome Project. He is a committed evolutionist and goes to great lengths to debunk ID (well actually, great lengths are not required). He is also an outspoken Evangelical Christian.

This video is 2 hours long, but it is worth it. There are other video's of Collins explaining his 'conversion' and his ideas in shorter bits. This is the most complete and is absolutely on topic with this thread.





edit: add response to science = atheism claim

[edit on 18/5/2010 by rnaa]

[edit on 18/5/2010 by rnaa]

Why? Because you said it.

reply to post by edmc^2


Sorry but i dont see Jesus any where in any of you claims.

Why didn't God mention Jesus in verse 2 in Chapter one of Genesis?

Why does God say that there is nothing but darkness upon the deep in verse 2?

How would God create light without using magic?

How do you think the last sentence in verse 2 could be related to the cause of light?

I dont see how Let there be can be a command given to Jesus. What your saying is just what your groomed to believe in. You have been punked period, by someone who makes money from interpreting the Bible. Or by someone who don't understand what they read.

If you do some critical thinking you know God is not talking to Jesus at all. And you know it. It doesn't make sense.

EDIT to add.

Verse 1. In the beginning GOD CREATED HEAVEN AND EARTH. How do you make that out to be Jesus?



[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

reply to post by spy66


Some religious believers are starting to understand that science and religion are actually complementary, not at odds.

Precious few, but some.

I recommend The BioLogos Forum

reply to post by rnaa


I agree more and more people are starting to realize the compatibility between the two.

Personally i have figured all this out on my own. I told my self: If i am going to have any credibility in the bible/God. The creation described in chapter one of Genesis must add up.

If it don't: I told my self i wouldn't read the rest of it.

Soon i will make a post that describes the order of life. I am working on that right now. And the bible is dead on. Its just that i have to put the science into it, to make it credible.

Its quite easy to do really, its just that it takes a long time to put the different pieces into the right place at the right time.

reply to post by undo


Thankyou very much for your reply, I've got a fair bit of reading to do now. I may not agree with your opinion, but I do value it.

This reminds me why I come to ATS.

Just to quickly ask, as I'm having trouble finding it and I've used Google translate - in no way am I taking that as a serious guide though - what is the Hebrew translation of Legion?

I found Hassatan in the text, but that refers to Satan (not legion)...

Again, thankyou very much for the time you must have taken to give such an informative response.

reply to post by rnaa


goes even farther than that, if my research is correct. (which it may not be, but it's certainly been interesting).

this is what i found:

Google Video Link

my theory is that the original word to describe god was melded in ancient texts with a physical phenomenon, called a wormhole and/or black hole, which "created" the gods (and the universe). the singularity, now that has promise.



so when genesis talks about god creating the universe, they are applying to god the entity, the physical phenomenon, which, in this pretext, is god creating the universe and the gods and everything in the universe.

kaku's references help to further define it as an other dimensional event, which may arrive in our universe via the singularity. you also have levels of events, on a scalar model. you start off with other dimensions. then our dimension. then our universe. then our galaxy. then our solar system. then our planet. then us.

reply to post by jokei


far as i can tell it correlates with the hebrew word for "host" as in a gathered group.
www.blueletterbible.org...

but that's not a direct translation, it's a synonym. i just looked up the english definition of legion (latin word), which means to gather , like gathering a host. then did a search for host in strongs concordance and that was the result.

reply to post by spy66

Sorry but i dont see Jesus any where in any of you claims.

Not my claim but the Bible’s. But I’m not surprise why you don’t see and know this!

Why didn't God mention Jesus in verse 2 in Chapter one of Genesis?

Sorry, but it’s a meaningless question, it’s like a 1st or 2nd grader asking an adult why did the ice cream truck guy didn’t mention why he didn’t sell pizza.

I know that you are trying hard to convince yourself that God used evolution not Jesus to create life, so I’m not going to question you on that as you are already dead set on that nonsense theory.
But I’ll try to help you as best as I can.

How would God create light without using magic?

Huh, magic? I’m curious why are you so attached with magic? Looks like anything that you don’t know the answer to becomes magic to you. Have you not read this?

Deut 18:10-13:
"There should not be found in you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, anyone who employs divination, a practicer of magic or anyone who looks for omens or a sorcerer, or one who binds others with a spell or anyone who consults a spirit medium or a professional foreteller of events or anyone who inquires of the dead. For everybody doing these things is something detestable to Jehovah, and on account of these detestable things Jehovah your God is driving them away from before you. You should prove yourself faultless with Jehovah your God."

Next you said:

How do you think the last sentence in verse 2 could be related to the cause of light?

I dont see how Let there be can be a command given to Jesus. What your saying is just what your groomed to believe in. You have been punked period, by someone who makes money from interpreting the Bible. Or by someone who don't understand what they read.

If you do some critical thinking you know God is not talking to Jesus at all. And you know it. It doesn't make sense.

Sorry spy66 but come-on, I don’t mean to insult nor make you mad but this is like talking to a 10 year old child. And I can see why it’s hard for you to understand because you refuse to learn and open your mind.
Anyway I’ll try to explain.

As for “Critical Thinking” - been there and done that and still learning a great deal more. But now I’m surprised that you came back with very weak questions.

I was expecting a more important and critical questions like:

Why did God create life (using Jesus)?
If God is Omniscient, did he know that man will sin before creating them? If God is Omnipotent, why can’t he put a stop to wickedness?
After Jesus, were there other heavenly creatures created besides humans?
Did God create the Devil?
Are all wickedness and suffering part of God’s plan?
What happened to Adam when he died? Why did Jesus need to suffer a painful death?
Will God bring back the paradise that the first humans lost?
What will be the future of mankind?
Will he allow his creation to be destroyed? Etc…

Cont...

cont...
Now to answer your questions:

Verse 1. In the beginning GOD CREATED HEAVEN AND EARTH. How do you make that out to be Jesus?

This verse is simply stating that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” nothing more nothing less unless you are trying to read more into it. No mention of Jesus or your sacred evolution. In other words it’s simply saying that for an unspecified period of time God began His creation. A very elegant way of stating the facts might I add.

Oh and btw, this could mean billions and billions of years in the past.

Next, you asked:

Why does God say that there is nothing but darkness upon the deep in verse 2?

I hope you know the process of how planets are formed so I will not go into it but as for the statement “darkness upon the deep” and it’s relation “to the cause of light?:

It simply means that time finally came for God to execute his master plan for the earth - that is, put humans on earth, but alas it “was formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of [the] watery deep”. So by means of his spirit (active force) he started to work on the “formless” earth. By the “spirit of God” the earth was now being transformed into a habitable planet.

Btw, the planet earth was not created in 6x24 days or 6000 years or 10,000 years as some believed but billions of years ago. And no evolution here!

v3 Then God commanded the "master worker", "Let there be light," and there was light.(NLT)

How did this happen – Well apparently not by “magic”, as the light (Hebrew ‘ohr’) came in a gradual process, extending over a long period of time, not instantaneously as when you turn on an electric light bulb.

Some Bible scholars explain it this way:

The Genesis rendering by translator J. W. Watts:

“And gradually light came into existence.”

(A Distinctive Translation of Genesis)

So this light can be seen as coming from the sun, but the sun itself could not be seen through the overcast. Hence, the light that reached earth was “light diffused,” as indicated by a comment about verse 3 in Rotherham’s Emphasised Bible.

And the rest is history as they say.

On a side note:
When examining the Genesis account, it is helpful to keep in mind that it approaches matters from the standpoint of people on earth. So it describes events as they would have been seen by human observers had they been present. This can be noted from its treatment of events on the fourth Genesis “day.” There the sun and moon are described as great luminaries in comparison to the stars. Yet many stars are far greater than our sun, and the moon is insignificant in comparison to them. But not to an earthly observer. So, as seen from the earth, the sun appears to be a ‘greater light that rules the day’ and the moon a ‘lesser light that dominates the night.

Also remember, the Genesis account was not written to show the “how” of creation. Rather, it covers major events in a progressive way, describing what things were formed, the order in which they were formed and the time interval, or “day,” in which each first appeared.


Next Q…

reply to post by spy66


Here is another resource that may help you: The Four Functions of Myth

This appears to be a synopsis for a class, but it serves as a great summary of Joseph Campbell's thoughts on the purpose of myth.

Joseph Campbell, a leading scholar in the fields of mythology and comparative religion, explains that myth has four basic functions: metaphysical/mystical, cosmological, sociological, and pedagogical. Its metaphysical function is to awaken us to the mystery and wonder of creation, to open our minds and our senses to an awareness of the mystical "ground of being," the source of all phenomena. Its cosmological function is to describe the "shape" of the cosmos, the universe, our total world, so that the cosmos and all contained within it become vivid and alive for us, infused with meaning and significance; every corner, every rock, hill, stone, and flower has its place and its meaning in the cosmological scheme which the myth provides. Its sociological function is to pass down "the law," the moral and ethical codes for people of that culture to follow, and which help define that culture and its prevailing social structure. Its pedagogical function is to lead us through particular rites of passage that define the various significant stages of our lives-from dependency to maturity to old age, and finally, to our deaths, the final passage. The rites of passage bring us into harmony with the "ground of being" (a term often used by Joseph Campbell to refer to an unnamed, unspecified universal mystical power) and allow us to make the journey from one stage to another with a sense of comfort and purpose.

The mystical experience, the core spiritual journey that envisions God, has always been a tough experience to communicate. Some would say it's impossible to communicate. Others would say that this is the primary function of myth-to find a way to communicate whatever mystical insight has been gained on the journey: an understanding of the mysteries that underlie the universe; an appreciation of its wonders; the sense of awe or rapture experienced. Since these things can't be communicated by direct means, myth speaks in a language of metaphors, of symbols, and symbolic narratives that aren't bound by objective reality. Some believe that the mystical experience is what gives birth to metaphoric language, metaphoric thinking.

In our post-Enlightenment western world, we have decidedly turned to science to tell us what the "shape of the world is." Originally, however, myth performed this function, explaining the cultural history, religion, class structure, origin, even the origin of the geographical features in the surrounding landscape. Myth describes the shape of the world, and infuses each part of that world with meaning and significance. And though a mythic tale may seem literally false to us today, it was once considered true, and it still expresses a metaphorical truth. All myths are true in the metaphorical sense, according to Joseph Campbell.

I cannot recommend the work of Joseph Campbell highly enough, he is one of the finest thinkers of the 20th century, IMO.

reply to post by rnaa


i like joseph campbell's mind! however, there are a few things i think that were hampering his research.

let's start with the beginning of the enlightenment period, when it was ruled that ancient history was just a series of myths and it was all thrown out as fabrication and fantasy. the writings that came out of this period influenced the rest of the western world, in every branch of learning, particularly as it regards subjects like "religion", some of which wasn't religion at all, but simply referred to events that were not explainable with the science of the time. They were just coming out of the "dark ages" which was characterized by the papacy of rome, acting as science czars and philosophy czars. the universities were filled with their professors, who were all catholic priests and the ilk. and here's where the big trouble started:

German Higher Criticism was devised to critique other ancient histories and prove that they were inferior to the papacy's interpretation of the biblical texts. As a result, it was determined by one of the critics that the ancient greeks couldn't write during the time their epics and histories were said to be written. Grecian historical and epic texts, starting with homer and working outwards, were ruled unreliable fantasy. Without Greece as the lynchpin of history between the african continent, the middle east and europe. the rest of the ancient world came crashing down as well. Soon all that was left was the papacy's interpretation of the bible, which was also thrown out because now there was no support for it in other ancient texts (since they had all been ruled myths). Thus started the enlightenment period.

40 years later, it was discovered that the ancient Greeks could write, but it was too late to save ancient history from the mythology label. When it was pointed out the original conclusion was incorrect and that the greeks could write during the time their histories and epics were written, they were met with statements such as "you don't really want to go back to believing in fairy tales do you?" The problem was, that many of the critiques of the ancient world were based on the science of the time, which of course, assumed things like manned air flight, artificial insemination, healing of deadly diseases and space travel, were fictions and not even remotely logical or possible. And they did all this before the advent of archaeology, a science they would themselves develop, only to have it prove their initial findings were wrong, repeatedly.



today with science, we can do almost everything ruled to be fantasy by the great minds of the enlightenment. we can implant a fetus in a woman without intercourse (virgin birth), fly thru the air, become invisible, change elements, clone new life from existing life, resurrect people from the dead, float up in the sky, teleport data across vast distances, manipulate quantum particles instantaneously, fly to other planets, destroy whole cities or even the planet, and etc. there's almost nothing in the ancient texts that doesn't have a scientific definition today. we may not be able to do all of it, but we're certainly approaching that level of technology and scientific acumen.



[edit on 18-5-2010 by undo]

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Sorry but i dont see Jesus any where in any of you claims.

Why didn't God mention Jesus in verse 2 in Chapter one of Genesis?

Why does God say that there is nothing but darkness upon the deep in verse 2?

How would God create light without using magic?

How do you think the last sentence in verse 2 could be related to the cause of light?

I dont see how Let there be can be a command given to Jesus. What your saying is just what your groomed to believe in. You have been punked period, by someone who makes money from interpreting the Bible. Or by someone who don't understand what they read.

If you do some critical thinking you know God is not talking to Jesus at all. And you know it. It doesn't make sense.

EDIT to add.

Verse 1. In the beginning GOD CREATED HEAVEN AND EARTH. How do you make that out to be Jesus?

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

Jesus was at Genesis as the word of God.

John.1
[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
[2] The same was in the beginning with God.
[3] All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
[4] In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
[5] And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

Verse 5 should hold special meaning to all atheist. Yo don't comprehend light.

Gen. 1:26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

Your definition and use of the word "magic" is silly. God never used magic and he openly condemns the use of it. When you and your kind use it's only with sarcasm. This is the reason serious creationist will not have a serious debate with you guy's.

reply to post by edmc^2




Sorry but i know i am right. And i know your are wrong. And i guess we have to leave it at that. We are two people with totally different views on this matter, and we will never see eye to eye on this. So i have to thank you for your time, and say you gave it all you had.

Originally posted by Loken68

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Sorry but i dont see Jesus any where in any of you claims.

Why didn't God mention Jesus in verse 2 in Chapter one of Genesis?

Why does God say that there is nothing but darkness upon the deep in verse 2?

How would God create light without using magic?

How do you think the last sentence in verse 2 could be related to the cause of light?

I dont see how Let there be can be a command given to Jesus. What your saying is just what your groomed to believe in. You have been punked period, by someone who makes money from interpreting the Bible. Or by someone who don't understand what they read.

If you do some critical thinking you know God is not talking to Jesus at all. And you know it. It doesn't make sense.

EDIT to add.

Verse 1. In the beginning GOD CREATED HEAVEN AND EARTH. How do you make that out to be Jesus?

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

Jesus was at Genesis as the word of God.

John.1
[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
[2] The same was in the beginning with God.
[3] All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
[4] In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
[5] And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

Verse 5 should hold special meaning to all atheist. Yo don't comprehend light.

Gen. 1:26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

Your definition and use of the word "magic" is silly. God never used magic and he openly condemns the use of it. When you and your kind use it's only with sarcasm. This is the reason serious creationist will not have a serious debate with you guy's.

Magic might be a silly word to you. But your not the only person here.

If you had even read or understood one of my posts you would know what my take on the word magic is. Because what your saying is not what i said.

You are commenting in the dark. You have no clue about what i am talking about. You are just stating your own view and saying its mine.

reply to post by undo


That mythology is 'just' fairytale is a lie perpetrated by the Church to distinguish its official mythology from all other mythologies. Simple as that.

The word "mythology" does not truly mean, and has never truly meant "falsehood" except in the mind of the Inquisitor. Popular usage not withstanding.

Joseph Campbell is one of the people seeking to reclaim the power of myth as an integral part of the human experience, and in so doing puts religion and science into their proper place as fundamentally complementary. As he points out, a society's mythology serves as more than 'just' religion, but as religion was the strongest 'player' in society, the other functions, especially sociological and pedagogical became intimately tied to the religion in order to make it sort of 'self enforcing'.

The Old Testament of the Bible is a record of the Jewish mythological structure designed to fulfill all four of Campbell's myth functions. The New Testament documents the Christian 'modernization' of that mythological structure.

In today's world we have 'modernized' it again, Science now fills the 'Cosmological' function and Secular Government fills the 'Sociological' function. This is no different than the Christian modernization of the mythology, it just hasn't been canonized the way the Bible has.

To me, the Arts and Culture have pretty much taken over the 'pedagogical' function, however this is incomplete and disorganized to the point that a lot of required functionality is missing. Many of today's problems can be traced to this - where is a coherent 'rite of passage' process for example? Many many people are stuck in adolescence for their entire lives because of this.

So that still leaves the 'metaphysical' function which has been seemingly abandoned by the religious as it seeks to hold on to those other three functions it is manifestly unable to deal with in the modern world. The more the Church insists on supernatural creation and virgin births the more the world turns to 'new-age' ideas for this 'metaphysical' part of existence.

reply to post by rnaa


Thanks, This is much in the line of thought i am using to figure out the whole picture.

God already had everything figured out before he initiated the creation. The bible is proof of that. Because it describes everything from the beginning to the end. The creation is based on a system that will play its course just like God had it planned. Our future is already set. We are the only once who don't know that the future is set. And it's because we don't know the future we are given the impression we have free will.

There are two books that confirm that the future is set. The Bible and the book of life. They are both already written. The future is set.

Science even proves it. By the knowledge of expansion. Its the expansion that sets the future.



[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

reply to post by rnaa


hrm, no you seem to have missed the point. what you appear to be saying is: yes the church made ancient history into a myth, but that's where they were wrong - it's a myth. you appear to be saying they were wrong because it's really what they said. lol

church insists on virgin birth. erm, it's not scientifically impossible, which was the reason given before! the enlightenment period offered up as rationale for labelling ancient history "religious" and tossing it out of historical consideration, that these things were not scientifically possible! But they ARE scientifically possible. this is the thing that i don't understand about your argument. you really should clarify and just state that you don't believe it was historical. and your reasoning for that is ..........what?