|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Aug 7, 2018 2:55:23 GMT
Probably because the authors of the Bible didn't know about dinosaurs. Or the age of the Earth. Or it's shape. Or biological evolution. Or that bats aren't birds. I think you know where I'm going with this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2018 3:25:27 GMT
Because it is not a biology book or a manual for classification of birds. This is my favorite response actually  The Bible wasn't written to be a science text book so it shouldn't be read as one |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2018 3:33:51 GMT
Made after, as in just a few days later. Creation took just a week. The dinosaurs didn't go extinct just a day or two after they were created. They were still around when people were supposedly created. The giant thing I can't explain, but I don't believe it was literally only a week. I'd imagine each 'day' is an era that could have lasted many thousands or millions of years. Not how we'd define day. Yeah and I think the use of time in the Bible maybe could even just represent the concept of chronological events, and using the idea of "days" and "weeks" makes it easier to understand that concept.. but obviously not in a literal way. |
|
|
|
Post by E位蔚蠀胃蔚蟻委 on Aug 7, 2018 4:02:09 GMT
The giant thing I can't explain, but I don't believe it was literally only a week. I'd imagine each 'day' is an era that could have lasted many thousands or millions of years. Not how we'd define day. Yeah and I think the use of time in the Bible maybe could even just represent the concept of chronological events, and using the idea of "days" and "weeks" makes it easier to understand that concept.. but obviously not in a literal way. Well, there would seem to a couple of pretty gigantic problems with that approach. (1) How do you account for the phrases: "and there was evening and there was morning, the third day" "and there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day" "and there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day" "and there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day" Genesis 1 (2) Why does Genesis 2 say, "So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation"? Observers of the Abrahamic faiths to this day still honor the seventh day, the day God rested after creation. If creation took, say, thousands or millions of years, why was the observance of the holy day made a weekly event with the inescapable implication that one solar day out of seven, as we recognize them today, was designated as the special day of rest after six days spent in the process of creation? |
|
|
|
Post by kls on Aug 7, 2018 4:05:43 GMT
Yeah and I think the use of time in the Bible maybe could even just represent the concept of chronological events, and using the idea of "days" and "weeks" makes it easier to understand that concept.. but obviously not in a literal way. Well, there would seem to a couple of pretty gigantic problems with that approach. (1) How do you account for the phrases: "and there was evening and there was morning, the third day" "and there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day" "and there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day" "and there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day" Genesis 1 (2) Why does Genesis 2 say, "So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation"? Observers of the Abrahamic faiths to this day still honor the seventh day, the day God rested after creation. If creation took, say, thousands or millions of years, why was the observance of the holy day made a weekly event with the inescapable implication that one solar day out of seven, as we recognize them today, was designated as the special day of rest after six days spent in the process of creation? We won't live on this earth nearly as long as it took to create it or the life on it. I imaging phrasing and concepts we can relate to were used. |
|
|
|
Post by E位蔚蠀胃蔚蟻委 on Aug 7, 2018 4:07:07 GMT
Noah's ark seems to me not literal. I think the use of time in the Bible maybe could even just represent the concept of chronological events, and using the idea of "days" and "weeks" makes it easier to understand that concept.. but obviously not in a literal way. If these events that are described in the scriptures are not meant to be taken as events that actually occurred in reality, how are we to know that other parts of the Bible are similarly not meant to be taken as events that actually occurred in reality? Perhaps Jesus of Nazareth's existence was never meant to be taken as an event that occurred in reality. Perhaps it was meant as a tale of inspiration intended to guide moral behavior. |
|
|
|
Post by kls on Aug 7, 2018 4:09:47 GMT
Noah's ark seems to me not literal. I think the use of time in the Bible maybe could even just represent the concept of chronological events, and using the idea of "days" and "weeks" makes it easier to understand that concept.. but obviously not in a literal way. If these events that are described in the scriptures are not meant to be taken as events that actually occurred in reality, how are we to know that other parts of the Bible are similarly not meant to be taken as events that actually occurred in reality? Perhaps Jesus of Nazareth's existence was never meant to be taken as an event that occurred in reality. Perhaps it was meant as a tale of inspiration intended to guide moral behavior. Except if He never walked and preached in the Holy Land how would anyone have convinced folks in the decades after His death they did in fact see and hear Him? Debate about His divinity is a whole other story. |
|
|
|
Post by E位蔚蠀胃蔚蟻委 on Aug 7, 2018 4:14:03 GMT
If these events that are described in the scriptures are not meant to be taken as events that actually occurred in reality, how are we to know that other parts of the Bible are similarly not meant to be taken as events that actually occurred in reality? Perhaps Jesus of Nazareth's existence was never meant to be taken as an event that occurred in reality. Perhaps it was meant as a tale of inspiration intended to guide moral behavior. Except if He never walked and preached in the Holy Land how would anyone have convinced folks in the decades after His death they did in fact see and hear Him? Debate about His divinity is a whole other story. We who are alive today do not know that he convinced anybody of anything. We only know that various people claimed that he had walked and preached. Same as with Moses and his tablets. Same as with the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) the Holy Quran. Same as with Joseph Smith and his Revelation. |
|
|
|
Post by kls on Aug 7, 2018 4:16:14 GMT
Except if He never walked and preached in the Holy Land how would anyone have convinced folks in the decades after His death they did in fact see and hear Him? Debate about His divinity is a whole other story. We who are alive today do not know that he convinced anybody of anything. We only know that various people claimed that he had walked and preached. Same as with Moses and his tablets. Same as with the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) the Holy Quran. Same as with Joseph Smith and his Revelation. I'm not talking about today. Are you saying that the movement didn't spread until many decades after when it is said He died? People just made up some early first century guy many years after the fact when first century people died off and weren't there to contradict them? Again, I'm not talking claims to have witnessed miracles-I'm talking simply of a man who spoke to crowds and preached in temples. As for Smith it's one thing to fool someone into believing Smith's revelations if they aren't true than it is to make up a Smith who never existed and get contemporaries to believe they had contact with him. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2018 5:02:53 GMT
Noah's ark seems to me not literal. I think the use of time in the Bible maybe could even just represent the concept of chronological events, and using the idea of "days" and "weeks" makes it easier to understand that concept.. but obviously not in a literal way. If these events that are described in the scriptures are not meant to be taken as events that actually occurred in reality, how are we to know that other parts of the Bible are similarly not meant to be taken as events that actually occurred in reality? Perhaps Jesus of Nazareth's existence was never meant to be taken as an event that occurred in reality. Perhaps it was meant as a tale of inspiration intended to guide moral behavior. Well that's how I see it. None of it may have happened and most likely never happened in a literal sense but they still point to another truth in another sense such as morally or symbolically. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 7, 2018 11:44:29 GMT
That changes can occur is species over time is somewhat more interesting and helpful in planning things, but that information is in the Bible. Read how Jacob modified the flocks of Laban in the book of Genesis. If I recall from my science days the usefulness in animal husbandry in general and genetics in particular of stripped bark, or something is negligible. So while interesting is unlikely to be helpful lol. Also the account of Laban appears to refer to a relatively short period of time (one or two generations perhaps?). Interestingly enough, though, I remember that, just after the account of Jacob comes some verse about husbandry which actually sounds like it was written by someone with practical experience. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2018 12:50:00 GMT
What a sad, sad view of the world you have. Okay, let's make a list of all the things you can buy with everything you know about dinosaurs plus one dollar. I'll start. You can buy one cup of coffee. Congrats, you missed the point again. I'd explain it... but you're so much of a dumbass there's no possibility that you'd understand. |
|
|
|
Post by E位蔚蠀胃蔚蟻委 on Aug 7, 2018 18:49:21 GMT
We who are alive today do not know that he convinced anybody of anything. We only know that various people claimed that he had walked and preached. Same as with Moses and his tablets. Same as with the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) the Holy Quran. Same as with Joseph Smith and his Revelation. I'm not talking about today. Are you saying that the movement didn't spread until many decades after when it is said He died? People just made up some early first century guy many years after the fact when first century people died off and weren't there to contradict them? Again, I'm not talking claims to have witnessed miracles-I'm talking simply of a man who spoke to crowds and preached in temples. As for Smith it's one thing to fool someone into believing Smith's revelations if they aren't true than it is to make up a Smith who never existed and get contemporaries to believe they had contact with him. For the present discussion, I am not saying anything about whether Jesus existed or not. I am offering the suggestion that if one can easily dismiss various parts of the Bible as not being meant to be taken literally, what protects the Jesus story from similarly being dismissed? (But for the record, why, yes, there is little to no reliable third-party contemporaneously recorded documentation of Jesus' alleged life and ministry. The evidence for Joseph Smith's real existence is, to the contrary, abundant. It's entirely possible, if not probable, that 'people just made up some early first century guy many years after the fact when first century people died off and weren't there to contradict them.') |
|
|
|
Post by maya55555 on Aug 7, 2018 22:03:47 GMT
|
|
