Why I believe Creation is factually accurate – The Reality!

reply to post by edmc^2
Prove to me there is no pink unicorn on Titan? If you can't, then it unequivocally exist.

However, I should address the irony of the unicorn analogy with this recent news item:

The 1-year-old Roe Deer — nicknamed "Unicorn" — was born in captivity in the research center's park in the Tuscan town of Prato, near Florence, Tozzi said. He is believed to have been born with a genetic flaw; his twin has two horns. Calling it the first time he has seen such a case, Tozzi said such anomalies among deer may have inspired the myth of the unicorn.

reply to post by daskakik


U said earlier:

He was trying to make a "scientific point" based on his "faith". This proves nothing. Much like you this is what this man believed based on his observations. Doesn't make it true although it did make it true for him.

Sir Isaac Newton -

Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) was the greatest scientist that ever lived. More than any other person, Newton was single-handedly responsible for laying the groundwork in classical mechanics, optics, and even mathematics. Landing man on the moon? Don’t look at Einstein – it was all done with Newtonian physics.

Glad to be counted amongst the greats!!

Here’s another: E=mc2 (energy equals mass times the speed of light squared), where did the E came from to CREATE the material universe?

My “statement of faith” says The Almighty. He is the source of abundant “dynamic Energy”

Bible says of God: “Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one of them [the heavenly bodies] is missing.” (Isaiah 40:26)

On the other hand:

My “scientific point” is that it REQUIRES not just Energy but an "abundant" source of “dynamic Energy” to convert it into matter.

Just in case you didn’t know, this equation (E=mc2 ) reveals that a little mass, or matter, harbors unbelievable energy.

I know you don’t believe me so here’s a statement from a professor, noted university professor Timothy Ferris:

“It explains why a bomb the size of an orange can lay waste to a city.”

ON the other hand—according to Einstein’s theory, energy can also be turned into matter. The forming of the material universe may thus have involved what one cosmologist called

“the most awesome transformation of matter and energy that we have been privileged to glimpse.”

So as you can see my “Statement of Faith” is supported / back up by “Scientific Point”.

Still a doubting Thomas?

Check out - Particle Accelerator/Smasher - how much energy it takes to "create" a very small particle of matter.

As for:

I see that part of the problem is that you define proof in a different way. For you if something is proposed and can't be disproved it makes it true. That's not the way science works.

Do you agree that scientific research is limited—restricted to what humans can actually observe or study? Otherwise it is mere theory or guesswork.

Do you know also that scientific method itself is “a religious approach.”? No?

I’m surprised! Anyway let’s have Professor Wigglesworth of Cambridge University explain what he meant by this statement?

So Professor, how so?

Because:

“It rests upon an unquestioning faith that natural phenomena conform to ‘laws of nature.’”

Like for example a “phenomena” or what we commonly call as “miracles”. It's not accepted by some because science can't 'fully' explain them let alone duplicate them (but little by little we're getting there).

Again notice what Dr. Michio Kaku said about this matter:

"the God of Miracles is, in some sense, beyond what we know as science. This is not to say that miracles cannot happen, only that they are outside what is commonly called science."

If something does not conform to natural laws, die hard atheists / evolutionists will say that it “proves nothing”. Although the facts and evidence is staring them in the eye, they will arrogantly say “Doesn't make it true”.

So when someone rejects belief in God, is he not simply exchanging one type of faith for another? In some cases, disbelief appears to be a deliberate refusal to face the truth – because they can’t “handle the truth”!

Note how apropos what the psalmist wrote:

“The wicked one according to his superciliousness makes no search; all his ideas are: ‘There is no God.’”—Psalm 10:4.

So do you believe that there’s no Creator – No God? Is that what your faith say?

ty,
e=mc2

Round and round it goes ! This thread is like a mobius strip - maybe time you all agreed to disagree and move on

reply to post by uva3021


Note what it said:

The 1-year-old Roe Deer — nicknamed "Unicorn" — was born in captivity in the research center's park in the Tuscan town of Prato, near Florence, Tozzi said. He is believed to have been born with a genetic flaw; his twin has two horns. Calling it the first time he has seen such a case, Tozzi said such anomalies among deer may have inspired the myth of the unicorn.

The key words are:

born with a genetic flaw and anomalies - just like snakes born with two heads or calf with two heads or frogs with four legs or even humans with two heads - one body.

But does this convince you then if a rare "unicorn" exist what about God the Creator of heaven and Earth?

Is it possible?

ty,
edmc2

reply to post by Hopeforeveryone


Well at least there's Hopeforeveryone.

I'm still waiting for someone to disprove the evidence presented in the OP since they can't accept it as factual.

So until then....

ty,
edmc2

reply to post by edmc^2

Robert Jastrow

It's not just me claiming he's full of s****, there's entire peer reviewed papers ripping apart his theories.

“You can call it the big bang, but you can also call it with accuracy the moment of creation.”

Which doesn't prove a creator was involved...things can be created without a creator, in fact, everything there's tons of stuff that does without a creator. Mountains for one, we can also explain how babies are made, no magic required...all proper science and analysis of biology

“Few astronomers could have anticipated that this event—the sudden birth of the Universe—would become a proven scientific fact, but observations of the heavens through telescopes have forced them to that conclusion.”

Still doesn't prove a creator

“The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.”

Yeah, and the same account also claims the sun was created after the earth Complete and utter nonsense...but I'm sure you'll find some metaphor to "make it fit", right?

In any case these quotes were in response to a question that somehow the statements made by prominent scientists have “no implication what so ever is made towards a biblical creation“.

Yes, and every single quote you posted fails at proving your point. They'd have to prove god's existence, but not one of those people did that

Of course because it doesn’t conform to your preconceived erroneous ideas thus you view them as “fallacious argument”. That’s understandable, but since you can’t disprove what they said as “fallacious argument” then their statement stands.

It's not me setting up those rules. If you argument the way you do at university, you simply fail the course

There's an entire list of fallacious arguments, and you seem really good at going through the entire list

Since you haven’t prove any of the evidence as unfounded or false then they stand tall.

I'm not saying what you posted is unfounded or false evidence...I'm saying it's not evidence at all

Not a single one of the quotes you posted are backed up by a scientific study or objective evidence, they are all stating a BELIEF. In order for them to support biblical creation, they'd have to prove god's existence, yet they all fail miserably at it

Btw, I’m still wondering why you ignored my simple questions in response to your earlier post.

Here it is again:

To be scientifically precise – 'He OBSERVED Gravity' - is the correct scientific explanation. It's like the wind although invisible to the naked eye we know it's there because we can OBSERVE its effects. Just like magnetic force – we know it's there because we can OBSERVE its effects. Just like radio waves – we know it's there because we can OBSERVE its effects.

So it comes down to this, your best argument is semantics? Really?

He saw the effects of gravity, that's a fact. So I used "gravity" instead of "effects of gravity". The point still stands, he was able to measure and like you say observe it. The same can't be said about god, because there's ZERO objective evidence supporting the claim he/she/it even exists

In short, nothing you posted in this thread proves your point. Like so many other creationists you state the conclusion first, and then try to dig up evidence, instead of the other way around. And hell, you even fail at that

reply to post by edmc^2


That's the problem with belief - people believe stuff, get invested in it and argue about it for ever. You guys are continuing a debate that's been going on for millenium and will go on for many more. I'd like to see you all come up with a general consensus as I'm sure there would be nobel prizes in it for everyone. Isn't going to happen though. Ok we get it you believe god created the universe - fair enough, it is your right. Other people prefer to believe in science and as such it hasn't answered that question so they're happy to wait for a definitive answer and such is their right. I really don't see what the problem is.

reply to post by edmc^2

But does this convince you then if a rare "unicorn" exist what about God the Creator of heaven and Earth?

Is it possible?

Hypothetically? Sure....but that doesn't mean I'll walk around claiming it's a fact and proven until I have objective evidence backing up that claim. I'm also not walking around claiming I saw a dude with a head like a lion, and feet like a rhino driving a giant chariot pulled by purple unicorns that feed on Snicker bars...hypothetically I guess it's possible, but we have ZERO evidence that giant lion-rhino man exists, just like we have ZERO evidence for god's existence

Nothing you posted in this thread proves his/her/its existence...so all your doing is speculating and claiming that speculation is a proven fact. It makes you look silly tbh

Proof of a creator.

The observer collapses wave function. This is the proof of a creator. Quantum particles are only arranged in relation to the observer. This is sure evidence that matter does not create the observer. The easier way to say this is to just point out that matter cannot make a choice. Without a choice, no value can be added to a bit of information. Entropy in information theory will show you that information cannot reverse the degradation of information apart from the observer collapsing the wave function of indeterminate probability. This is the quantum observer measurement problem in physics. The quote below shows that information is the key. Information does not arise apart form the choice of the observer. Therefore, the observer is the creator. There must be a first observer on the other side of the relationship, at rest, containing all possibility.

In all of nature, things flow away from the source. Only consciousness flows back toward the source. This is entropy in information theory at work. We have a reasonable expectation about the quality of information contained in a message and how that information degrades or reassembles. When the random variable is not known, there is an expected loss of information. Only the observer moves the random variable to greater distribution and alignment. This is not up for debate in science. It is observable and measurable. By no stretch can we move form a prebiotic chemical to the human brain using quantum holographic processing. LINK Creation is the first presupposition we can make about life. Anything else is nonsense and against everything we have learned about the quantum dynamics of the observer in relation to the thing observed.

QUOTE
"The significance ascribed to the wave function varies from interpretation to interpretation, and varies even within an interpretation (such as the Copenhagen Interpretation). If the wave function merely encodes an observer's knowledge of the universe then the wave function collapse corresponds to the receipt of new information. This is somewhat analogous to the situation in classical physics, except that the classical "wave function" does not necessarily obey a wave equation. If the wave function is physically real, in some sense and to some extent, then the collapse of the wave function is also seen as a real process, to the same extent. One of the paradoxes of quantum theory is that wave function seems to be more than just information (otherwise interference effects are hard to explain) but less than real (as the collapse seems to take place faster-than-light, and seems to be triggered by the observer)." LINK

reply to post by SuperiorEd


I can't believe your still copy/pasting that nonsense after people have repeatedly proven your wrong. Your understanding of quantum theory is seriously flawed

Nothing in quantum theory states a creator is required...and it most certainly doesn't validate the existence of a biblical creator

And now the question is this: How come we cannot see God? Why is He hidden?

Everything in nature is a manifestation of an opposite. Hot and cold. High and low. Fast and slow. Male and female. Good and evil. These are all one thing manifested in image into two. Consciousness can only perceive by comparison. A mirror cannot see itself. It can only see in reflection in the reverse of what is reflected. God is not seen because he has no opposite. He is hidden. He can only reveal Himself by manifesting in nature through the images of opposites. Each opposite teaches a lesson to our consciousness. Since God is all possibility at rest, we see Him in bits of information as images. All images are two to us, but four to God. We see time as a slice when it is not a slice. The 2nd dimension sees only right, left, but not up and down in three dimensions. We see the third dimension but only a slice of the fourth. Continue moving up the scale until you get to the singularity that is our opposite in totality. We only perceive matter in spacial time. God is all perspectives at once. Hidden to our opposite side.

We see mathematics as positive and negative. There are two additional sides. We see time as now. There are two additional sides. We see only half of reality. God is the other half or beyond.

Cutting and pasting from my head only. Please provide the link to a copy of my words. I link to all my sources. Otherwise, it is coming from my quantum holographic brain to my distal phalanges, moving through the virtual reality of ones and zeros (do you doubt the existence of a creator for the internet?), then to your eyes (do you activate the rods in your eyes to see?), then to your quantum holographic brain.

When's the last time you controlled the speed of growth of your hair follicles? Do you tell your lungs to absorb oxygen? Do you tell your heart to beat? Do you choose to keep your eyes lubricated? When is the last time you told your body you were hungry or thirsty? How do these things happen? You have nothing to do with the earth rotating or the galaxy moving. None of these things are you. You only benefit from them so your bio-mechanical suit can feed information to your consciousness. You can act, but there is a reaction waiting. You have no free will apart form making the choice to understand what the entire thing is telling you. Belief is the first of two choices in life. Loving others is by your first choice is the second piece of free will you have. Other than these two choices, you are on automatic. Choice, chance and the actions of others is all we have for free will. Chance is God acting on our lives through his choices. This is called providence and is never random.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

I can't believe your still copy/pasting that nonsense after people have repeatedly proven your wrong. Your understanding of quantum theory is seriously flawed

Nothing in quantum theory states a creator is required...and it most certainly doesn't validate the existence of a biblical creator

reply to post by edmc^2

Hi Edmc

Your ‘literalist’ understanding of textually corrupt, un-pointed paleo Hebrew ‘scriptures (words that you cannot even read in the original) is shocking and painfully jejune.

So….to recap your OP…. let me get this straight – you want all of us moderns today on this OP threadlet ‘literally to believe’ that the 2 Creation Myths of the Jews in Gen 1:1 to 2:4a and 2:4b to 4:26 are NOT mutually contradictory at all, i.e. if read side by side by ‘close reading’?

(Here’s a project for you: try reading them both back to back very very very closely – in English if that’s all you can read - then check out the Different Order of Creation, for a start.

You can then compare all the other MUTUALLY CONTRADICTORY DETAILS (‘male and female created Elohim in his own image and he called THEIR name ADAM” – which means ELOHIM is (literally) male AND female like ADAM – see Gen 5:1-2, written by the same Hezekielite Babylonian accented priest who gave us the 1st Creation Myth of the Jews found in Gen 1:1 to 2:4a)

Further, you expect modern thinking persons on this thread to believe’ literally’ that Vegetation (i.e. ‘herbs, grasses, trees’) were created or somehow magically existed upon the ‘earth’ (or ‘land’) WAY BEFORE the ‘creation’ of the Stars, the Sun and the Moon?

(Hint: there’s a charming little thing called PhotoSynthesis – try reading up a little on the subject – clearly there was no Vegetation in existence (nor could there be) BEFORE the Sun or the Stars or even the Moon came into existence, this scientifically (i.e. ‘literally’) speaking.

Also, that you ‘literally’ believe in ‘Talking Snakes’? (2nd Creation Myth of the Jews) – Hint: Snakes don’t talk. (presumably you also believe in Talking Donkeys in the Bala’am myth found in the Torah – see Numbers 22:40 etc.)

You ‘literally’ believe that the ‘solid beaten-metal Bowl’ (“reqia’k”) exists over a ‘flat earth’ separating the waters below from the waters above and therefore rests upon the waters below (Heb. ‘Tohu wa Bohu’ - see the 1st Creation Myth of the Jews Gen 1:1 to 2:4a ) which is, ahem,’ in some weird way supported by Cosmic Pillars’ that can literally Shake at the rebuke of Eloah (see the 3rd Creation Myth of the Jews buried in your own mis-quoted, mis-handled, mis-understood, textually corrupt and late, mangled Masoretic Text of Job 26: 11, 13


e.g. The Pillars of Heaven tremble & shake at his Reproofs
By his 'Wind' (or breath) he Moved about (or 'arranged') the Heavens;
Yea, by his Right Hand, he Slew the Crooked (or 'fleeing') Serpent.

I’m not sure about your owwn particular educational level, but by your mis-guided handling of so many mangled and contradictory hand copied Hebrew texts that you purport to understand (at least well enough to quote in support of your delusional Cosmology) you are clearly NOT conversant in either un-pointed PaleoHebrew, Aramaic or Koine Greek nor are you in any way aware of the actual 'fluid textual situation of those 'scriptures' as they existed prior to AD 90.

Here are some links for you to read by Emmanuel Tov (Professor of Biblical Studies at Hebrew University in Jerusalem) who years ago has had totally to abandon his youthful 'orthodox' assumptions ref: the inviability of the later Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT) when he took the time painstakingly to compare the SamPent, and all the Various Vorlagen textual underlays to the Greek versions which are 1200 years older than the Masoretic Text (MT) and are based on a DIFFERENT, Separate yet Viably Coherent Hebrew Consonantal Text Tradition altogether (much to his shock and awe, and later to his chagrin and those of his contermporaries - but facts are stubborn things, as he discovered !) From 1990-2009 he served as Editor in Chief of the Publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls materials (Discoveries in the Judaen Desert)

Here's a Wiki QUOTE for you since you seem to like to quote from the Wikipedia -

'Emanuel Tov’s studies on the Septuagint focused first on inner-translational developments and gradually moved to the importance of this translation for the study of the Bible:

The early revisions of the Septuagint, translation technique, the reconstruction of the Hebrew parent text (Vorlage) of the Greek LXX translation, the value of the Septuagint for the textual study of the Hebrew Bible, the importance of certain Septuagint books for the exegesis of the Hebrew books and the understanding of their literary development, the place of the Hebrew source of the Septuagint in the development of the text of the Bible.

Tov’s initial publications on the Greeek LXX Septuagint deal with that translation’s early revisions that were intended to approximate the Greek text to the Hebrew text current in Israel from the first century BCE until the second century CE.

For that research, he established sound principles by determining the criteria for defining and characterizing the revisions. His preoccupation with matters of translation technique and the reconstruction of the Hebrew parent text of the Septuagint was influenced by his practical work in the HUBP (Hebrew University Bible Project).

In that research, he combined the field work in that project with the formulation of abstract rules for the evaluation of details in the Septuagint, constantly cross-fertilizing both areas.

These rules were formulated in his theoretical book on the Septuagint that grew out of his courses at the Hebrew University, each year on a different Bible book..."


See below, 2 very brief generic overviews by Tov himself where he tackles the issue (and only citiing a couple of examples !) of comparing the earlier Hebrew textual underlays (Vorlagen) to the Greek Septuaginta (LXX) and the Dead Sea Scroll copies and the socalled ProtoMasoretic unpointed (unvowelled) text foundd in the Dead Sea Scrolls dated to 100 BCE with what appears in the later 'edited' Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Scriptures (aka the MT) from a single MS in St Petersburg in Russia c. 960 AD -

It is NOT exhaustive, only a beginning - but he shows what I've been telling people on this thread all along - the textual fluidity prior to AD 70-90 stands in UTTER CONTRAST to the pro-Masoretic 'enforced' singular text versions thrust upon Rabinnic Judaism AFTER Jamnia (post AD 70-90) when the 2nd Temple no longer stood and the Jewish survivors of the 1st Failed Jewish War against Rome had to come up with a 'canon' of scriptures which was still in debate until way after AD 120 (ref: Hezekiel, Esther, Song of Songs etc.)


www.emanueltov.info...

Also check out aanother related article of his:

www.emanueltov.info...

In addition to the books I suggested you read in my earlier postings - since after all you need 'hard information' at your fingertips if you are ever going to discuss this topic with informed persons - that is you will have to have at least a VERY BASIC textual understanding of the touchy and messy textual issues at hand - which you are sorely lacking, obviously.

So why would you even DARE to open up a discussion on such matters that are so ‘literally’ far above your comprehension ?

The requirement of an observer is called the observer effect. LINK Are you sure I need the lesson in physics? Why don't you start backing all your bias up with some context. I have continued to ask you to do this and you keep saying the same thing. Your standard answer is, "You are wrong." Back it up. Tell us a thing or two. Be specific. Add some content to the website or nobody will visit your opinion as a conscious observer.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

I can't believe your still copy/pasting that nonsense after people have repeatedly proven your wrong. Your understanding of quantum theory is seriously flawed

Nothing in quantum theory states a creator is required...and it most certainly doesn't validate the existence of a biblical creator

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Faith2011

 

No evidence. For your claims. That's really all I can say.

And day-age creationism? That's only slightly less illogical than regular ol' young Earth stuff. You're still accepting supposition...and you're tossing Lucifer into Genesis 1:2 without any proper reasoning for it. There's no connection between the two passages.

Yes! This is The Correlation... Genesis 1:2 Result of The Fall of The Morning Star = Lucifer

The Heavens and The Earth Were in A Perfect Condition... Until The Judgment of The Fallen Angels...
12 How you have fallen from heaven,
morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!
13 You said in your heart,
“I will ascend to the heavens;
I will raise my throne
above the stars of God;
I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,
on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon.
14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High.”
15 But you are brought down to the realm of the dead,
to the depths of the pit.
ISAIAH Ch. 14

Ezekiel 28:12-18
"Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty."

13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.

14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire."

This is not an earthly king, as the word "cherub" is only used in references to angels.

15 "Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee."

16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.

The word "covering" is from the Hebrew word cakak, and means: to entwine, to fence in, cover over, protect, defend, hedge in, (source "The complete word study Old Testament")

Was Lucifer’s job to protect the very earth he corrupted? Was this one of his duties that gave him so much pride?

17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.

18 Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.

"For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old [], and the earth standing
[] out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed [] with water,
perished [] : But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men."
(2 Pet 3:5-7 KJV)


"And the earth was without form [], and void []; and darkness [] was upon the face of the deep []. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."
(Genesis 1:2 KJV)

www.kjvbible.org... (Rightly Dividing The Word Of God)

Originally posted by SuperiorEd

The requirement of an observer is called the observer effect. LINK Are you sure I need the lesson in physics? Why don't you start backing all your bias up with some context. I have continued to ask you to do this and you keep saying the same thing. Your standard answer is, "You are wrong." Back it up. Tell us a thing or two. Be specific. Add some content to the website or nobody will visit your opinion as a conscious observer.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

I can't believe your still copy/pasting that nonsense after people have repeatedly proven your wrong. Your understanding of quantum theory is seriously flawed

Nothing in quantum theory states a creator is required...and it most certainly doesn't validate the existence of a biblical creator

I think it's kinda hilarious that you keep on asking for evidence against your claims, and when people post them, you simply ignore them before posting "where's the evidence" a few posts later. Read your own threads dude, every single one of your claims has been refuted over and over again.

And according to your flawed understanding of quantum theory, the observer (aka you) create things...which would make you god. It still isn't proof for a biblical creator

reply to post by Faith2011


I'm not sure how silly you look posting the bible as proof...given how demonstrably wrong the bible is. Here's a link showing how exactly the bible is complete and utter nonsense when it comes to science: LINK

Of course you're just gonna ignore this, and respond by posting another bible quote

reply to post by SuperiorEd

When's the last time you controlled the speed of growth of your hair follicles? Do you tell your lungs to absorb oxygen? Do you tell your heart to beat? Do you choose to keep your eyes lubricated? When is the last time you told your body you were hungry or thirsty? How do these things happen?

And this is a good example of why I think you're 100% clueless and ignorant of science and facts. We can fully explain every single one of your questions

I can answer this. You assume concrete when the abstract is required. The Bible is not perceived in black and white. It requires color and depth. If you only look at the ocean by seeing the surface and waves, you miss what is deep inside. The eyes are not enough.

When, for instance, the Bible says God was walking in the garden (earth) and noticed that Adam and Eve were hiding, it is not meant to be taken in the concrete sense of walking. God was walking with man as teacher. Man made the choice to break the rule about seeking knowledge and stopped walking with God for his education. When it says God was walking in the midst of the garden, it simply means God was still doing his part by walking with man. He has never stopped. We, in our pride, are still walking in the garden apart form God. Further, you read that God told man that he would toil on the earth for his education. This is literally true. If you walk away form God while in the garden (earth), you will walk in toil and pain. If you walk with God in belief and you make choices that show you love your neighbor, then you walk in peace. Rest will follow.

Now you see in color. I have assisted you in seeing deeper into what the Bible is actually saying. Try this with the rest of the Bible. God is not concrete or He would be represented by something in the material world. He refuses to be represented in this manner. He can only be conceptualized by the image He creates (nature). You must open your mind and dig deep. The Emerald is not found by the king, it's found by the slave doing the digging. The King doesn't even need the emerald. Either do you. The wealth comes form the journey.

Originally posted by Sigismundus
reply to post by edmc^2

Hi Edmc

Your ‘literalist’ understanding of textually corrupt, un-pointed paleo Hebrew ‘scriptures (words that you cannot even read in the original) is shocking and painfully jejune.

So….to recap your OP…. let me get this straight – you want all of us moderns today on this OP threadlet ‘literally to believe’ that the 2 Creation Myths of the Jews in Gen 1:1 to 2:4a and 2:4b to 4:26 are NOT mutually contradictory at all, i.e. if read side by side by ‘close reading’?

(Here’s a project for you: try reading them both back to back very very very closely – in English if that’s all you can read - then check out the Different Order of Creation, for a start.

You can then compare all the other MUTUALLY CONTRADICTORY DETAILS (‘male and female created Elohim in his own image and he called THEIR name ADAM” – which means ELOHIM is (literally) male AND female like ADAM – see Gen 5:1-2, written by the same Hezekielite Babylonian accented priest who gave us the 1st Creation Myth of the Jews found in Gen 1:1 to 2:4a)

Further, you expect modern thinking persons on this thread to believe’ literally’ that Vegetation (i.e. ‘herbs, grasses, trees’) were created or somehow magically existed upon the ‘earth’ (or ‘land’) WAY BEFORE the ‘creation’ of the Stars, the Sun and the Moon?

(Hint: there’s a charming little thing called PhotoSynthesis – try reading up a little on the subject – clearly there was no Vegetation in existence (nor could there be) BEFORE the Sun or the Stars or even the Moon came into existence, this scientifically (i.e. ‘literally’) speaking.

Also, that you ‘literally’ believe in ‘Talking Snakes’? (2nd Creation Myth of the Jews) – Hint: Snakes don’t talk. (presumably you also believe in Talking Donkeys in the Bala’am myth found in the Torah – see Numbers 22:40 etc.)

You ‘literally’ believe that the ‘solid beaten-metal Bowl’ (“reqia’k”) exists over a ‘flat earth’ separating the waters below from the waters above and therefore rests upon the waters below (Heb. ‘Tohu wa Bohu’ - see the 1st Creation Myth of the Jews Gen 1:1 to 2:4a ) which is, ahem,’ in some weird way supported by Cosmic Pillars’ that can literally Shake at the rebuke of Eloah (see the 3rd Creation Myth of the Jews buried in your own mis-quoted, mis-handled, mis-understood, textually corrupt and late, mangled Masoretic Text of Job 26: 11, 13


e.g. The Pillars of Heaven tremble & shake at his Reproofs
By his 'Wind' (or breath) he Moved about (or 'arranged') the Heavens;
Yea, by his Right Hand, he Slew the Crooked (or 'fleeing') Serpent.

I’m not sure about your owwn particular educational level, but by your mis-guided handling of so many mangled and contradictory hand copied Hebrew texts that you purport to understand (at least well enough to quote in support of your delusional Cosmology) you are clearly NOT conversant in either un-pointed PaleoHebrew, Aramaic or Koine Greek nor are you in any way aware of the actual 'fluid textual situation of those 'scriptures' as they existed prior to AD 90.

Here are some links for you to read by Emmanuel Tov (Professor of Biblical Studies at Hebrew University in Jerusalem) who years ago has had totally to abandon his youthful 'orthodox' assumptions ref: the inviability of the later Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT) when he took the time painstakingly to compare the SamPent, and all the Various Vorlagen textual underlays to the Greek versions which are 1200 years older than the Masoretic Text (MT) and are based on a DIFFERENT, Separate yet Viably Coherent Hebrew Consonantal Text Tradition altogether (much to his shock and awe, and later to his chagrin and those of his contermporaries - but facts are stubborn things, as he discovered !) From 1990-2009 he served as Editor in Chief of the Publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls materials (Discoveries in the Judaen Desert)

Here's a Wiki QUOTE for you since you seem to like to quote from the Wikipedia -

'Emanuel Tov’s studies on the Septuagint focused first on inner-translational developments and gradually moved to the importance of this translation for the study of the Bible:

The early revisions of the Septuagint, translation technique, the reconstruction of the Hebrew parent text (Vorlage) of the Greek LXX translation, the value of the Septuagint for the textual study of the Hebrew Bible, the importance of certain Septuagint books for the exegesis of the Hebrew books and the understanding of their literary development, the place of the Hebrew source of the Septuagint in the development of the text of the Bible.

Tov’s initial publications on the Greeek LXX Septuagint deal with that translation’s early revisions that were intended to approximate the Greek text to the Hebrew text current in Israel from the first century BCE until the second century CE.

For that research, he established sound principles by determining the criteria for defining and characterizing the revisions. His preoccupation with matters of translation technique and the reconstruction of the Hebrew parent text of the Septuagint was influenced by his practical work in the HUBP (Hebrew University Bible Project).

In that research, he combined the field work in that project with the formulation of abstract rules for the evaluation of details in the Septuagint, constantly cross-fertilizing both areas.

These rules were formulated in his theoretical book on the Septuagint that grew out of his courses at the Hebrew University, each year on a different Bible book..."


See below, 2 very brief generic overviews by Tov himself where he tackles the issue (and only citiing a couple of examples !) of comparing the earlier Hebrew textual underlays (Vorlagen) to the Greek Septuaginta (LXX) and the Dead Sea Scroll copies and the socalled ProtoMasoretic unpointed (unvowelled) text foundd in the Dead Sea Scrolls dated to 100 BCE with what appears in the later 'edited' Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Scriptures (aka the MT) from a single MS in St Petersburg in Russia c. 960 AD -

It is NOT exhaustive, only a beginning - but he shows what I've been telling people on this thread all along - the textual fluidity prior to AD 70-90 stands in UTTER CONTRAST to the pro-Masoretic 'enforced' singular text versions thrust upon Rabinnic Judaism AFTER Jamnia (post AD 70-90) when the 2nd Temple no longer stood and the Jewish survivors of the 1st Failed Jewish War against Rome had to come up with a 'canon' of scriptures which was still in debate until way after AD 120 (ref: Hezekiel, Esther, Song of Songs etc.)


www.emanueltov.info...

Also check out aanother related article of his:

www.emanueltov.info...

In addition to the books I suggested you read in my earlier postings - since after all you need 'hard information' at your fingertips if you are ever going to discuss this topic with informed persons - that is you will have to have at least a VERY BASIC textual understanding of the touchy and messy textual issues at hand - which you are sorely lacking, obviously.

So why would you even DARE to open up a discussion on such matters that are so ‘literally’ far above your comprehension ?

Augustine, from City of God (Read Here)

"And yet the validity of logical sequences is not a thing devised by men, but is observed and noted by them that they may be able to learn and teach it; for it exists eternally in the reason of things, and has its origin with God. For as the man who narrates the order of events does not himself create that order; and as he who describes the situations of places, or the natures of animals, or roots, or minerals, does not describe arrangements of man; and as he who points out the stars and their movements does not point out anything that he himself or any other man has ordained;—in the same way, he who says, “When the consequent is false, the antecedent must also be false,” says what is most true; but he does not himself make it so, he only points out that it is so."

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

When's the last time you controlled the speed of growth of your hair follicles? Do you tell your lungs to absorb oxygen? Do you tell your heart to beat? Do you choose to keep your eyes lubricated? When is the last time you told your body you were hungry or thirsty? How do these things happen?

And this is a good example of why I think you're 100% clueless and ignorant of science and facts. We can fully explain every single one of your questions