|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 16, 2018 21:10:29 GMT
Now THERE'S an assertion worth examining. And since I don't wish to be accused of mischaracterizing your view, let's be completely clear. You are saying that the EARTH was created NOT in that six creation day period, but that earth was created at some point BEFORE those six days even began. Correct?
I'm saying Genesis 1:1 is not referenced as part of the first creative day. It was a statement on who created the universe.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 16, 2018 21:36:51 GMT
FilmFlaneurPoint is being missed. Assuming omnipotence, there's no reason for a creator with unlimited power and unlimited time to get thigs done quickly per your estimation. Omnipotence practically means you can do things for whatever amount of time and effort you want...unless this another one of those versions of omnipotence where God is a slave to his power. Again, this is just you saying "If I were omnipotent, I would do things instantly"...Well, good for you. God didn't write Genesis. No book of the Bible explains things beyond what the writer can understand. Again, we are talking about from the earth. Verse 2 describes what kind of condition the earth was in, so not sure why it would be unusual to think that the earth could be in absolute darkness even as there are billions of stars, including the sun shining in the universe. No, but the morning starts before the sun rises if we are using human measurements. I find it hard to believe that you call morning morning solely on the basis of sunlight. The creative days are simply markers for when God started something and finished something tied to those days. Now if you want to believe those days were a literal 24 hours, perhaps like the writer of Genesis, that's your business, but a day certainly doesn't have to mean that to God keeps to an earth clock. That doesn't even make sense by your view of what omnipotence and omniscience is. I've never said anything other than that. I think it's funny that you think that the writers are so stupid as to not think day and night as a time period, a work time to be specific, when people use day and night as time periods all the time and then the writer was stupid enough to not apply the same thing on the last day. That must be like double stupid of the writer.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 16, 2018 22:03:49 GMT
FilmFlaneur Point is being missed. Assuming omnipotence, there's no reason for a creator with unlimited power and unlimited time to get thigs done quickly per your estimation. Omnipotence practically means you can do things for whatever amount of time and effort you want...unless this another one of those versions of omnipotence where God is a slave to his power. Again, this is just you saying "If I were omnipotent, I would do things instantly"...Well, good for you. God didn't write Genesis. No book of the Bible explains things beyond what the writer can understand. Again, we are talking about from the earth. Verse 2 describes what kind of condition the earth was in, so not sure why it would be unusual to think that the earth could be in absolute darkness even as there are billions of stars, including the sun shining in the universe. No, but the morning starts before the sun rises if we are using human measurements. I find it hard to believe that you call morning morning solely on the basis of sunlight. The creative days are simply markers for when God started something and finished something tied to those days. Now if you want to believe those days were a literal 24 hours, perhaps like the writer of Genesis, that's your business, but a day certainly doesn't have to mean that to God keeps to an earth clock. That doesn't even make sense by your view of what omnipotence and omniscience is. I've never said anything other than that. I think it's funny that you think that the writers are so stupid as to not think day and night as a time period, a work time to be specific, when people use day and night as time periods all the time and then the writer was stupid enough to not apply the same thing on the last day. That must be like double stupid of the writer. Do you know what I think? ***** whispers*****
I think that it is a story made up by men around 2,000 years ago (more accurately 2,500- 2,600, edited with updated information by Cash because the word 'around' was not specific enough in his opinion) to make sense of their environment and the bigger things in the universe because they didn't know any better. Since we now know a fair bit more, these views are now anachronistic and people like you who debate them and make cryptic comments to obfuscate any apparent contradictions in either translation or prior interpretation, are pissing in the winds of logic, change and a new secular spiritualty. ie acceptance of things we do know and wonder at the things that we don't. Your (plural) problem is that you have made it too simplistic and lowest common denominator, so that now when you do this stuff, you tend to look naïve and brain washed by the powers of human based power and religion, which only benefits those at the top of the religious power tree.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 16, 2018 22:50:31 GMT
Now THERE'S an assertion worth examining. And since I don't wish to be accused of mischaracterizing your view, let's be completely clear. You are saying that the EARTH was created NOT in that six creation day period, but that earth was created at some point BEFORE those six days even began. Correct?
I'm saying Genesis 1:1 is not referenced as part of the first creative day. It was a statement on who created the universe. First, you said, "the earth were created BEFORE the start of the creative days," which means that Gen. 1:1 is NOT a part of the first creation day. But now that someone has taken note of that statement, you get all slippery about it and say that Gen 1:1 "is NOT REFERENCED as part of the first creative day" - words that mean that it COULD STILL VERY WELL be part of that day rather than before it. So which is it? Was the earth created before the start of the creation days or not before?
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 16, 2018 23:08:39 GMT
I'm saying Genesis 1:1 is not referenced as part of the first creative day. It was a statement on who created the universe. First, you said, "the earth were created BEFORE the start of the creative days," which means that Gen. 1:1 is NOT a part of the first creation day. But now that someone has taken note of that statement, you get all slippery about it and say that Gen 1:1 "is NOT REFERENCED as part of the first creative day" - words that mean that it COULD STILL VERY WELL be part of that day rather than before it. So which is it? Was the earth created before the start of the creation days or not before?
OK, let's go with what i said at first if that makes you happy and more driven to get to the point. Dazzle me!
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Mar 16, 2018 23:16:46 GMT
FilmFlaneur Point is being missed. Assuming omnipotence, there's no reason for a creator with unlimited power and unlimited time to get thigs done quickly per your estimation. Omnipotence practically means you can do things for whatever amount of time and effort you want...unless this another one of those versions of omnipotence where God is a slave to his power. Again, this is just you saying "If I were omnipotent, I would do things instantly"...Well, good for you. God didn't write Genesis. No book of the Bible explains things beyond what the writer can understand. Again, we are talking about from the earth. Verse 2 describes what kind of condition the earth was in, so not sure why it would be unusual to think that the earth could be in absolute darkness even as there are billions of stars, including the sun shining in the universe. No, but the morning starts before the sun rises if we are using human measurements. I find it hard to believe that you call morning morning solely on the basis of sunlight. The creative days are simply markers for when God started something and finished something tied to those days. Now if you want to believe those days were a literal 24 hours, perhaps like the writer of Genesis, that's your business, but a day certainly doesn't have to mean that to God keeps to an earth clock. That doesn't even make sense by your view of what omnipotence and omniscience is. I've never said anything other than that. I think it's funny that you think that the writers are so stupid as to not think day and night as a time period, a work time to be specific, when people use day and night as time periods all the time and then the writer was stupid enough to not apply the same thing on the last day. That must be like double stupid of the writer. Do you know what I think? ***** whispers*****
I think that it is a story made up by men around 2,000 years ago to make sense of their environment and the bigger things in the universe because they didn't know any better. Since we now know a fair bit more, these views are now anachronistic and people like you who debate them and make cryptic comments to obfuscate any apparent contradictions in either translation or prior interpretation, are pissing in the winds of logic, change and a new secular spiritualty. ie acceptance of things we do know and wonder at the things that we don't. Your (plural) problem is that you have made it too simplistic and lowest common denominator, so that now when you do this stuff, you tend to look naïve and brain washed by the powers of human based power and religion, which only benefits those at the top of the religious power tree.You're only off by 500 to 600 years.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 16, 2018 23:18:06 GMT
First, you said, "the earth were created BEFORE the start of the creative days," which means that Gen. 1:1 is NOT a part of the first creation day. But now that someone has taken note of that statement, you get all slippery about it and say that Gen 1:1 "is NOT REFERENCED as part of the first creative day" - words that mean that it COULD STILL VERY WELL be part of that day rather than before it. So which is it? Was the earth created before the start of the creation days or not before?
OK, let's go with what i said at first if that makes you happy and more driven to get to the point. Dazzle me! [cryptic]icon [obfuscation]icon [backtowalloflogic]icon
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 16, 2018 23:21:11 GMT
Do you know what I think? ***** whispers*****
I think that it is a story made up by men around 2,000 years ago to make sense of their environment and the bigger things in the universe because they didn't know any better. Since we now know a fair bit more, these views are now anachronistic and people like you who debate them and make cryptic comments to obfuscate any apparent contradictions in either translation or prior interpretation, are pissing in the winds of logic, change and a new secular spiritualty. ie acceptance of things we do know and wonder at the things that we don't. Your (plural) problem is that you have made it too simplistic and lowest common denominator, so that now when you do this stuff, you tend to look naïve and brain washed by the powers of human based power and religion, which only benefits those at the top of the religious power tree.You're only off by 500 to 600 years. Whatever! You get the gist. Does it diminish the argument? You give the correct date and I will edit it to make you happy, of course with an edited notation. ![](https://s26.postimg.org/6m0mtnt09/angel.gif)
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Mar 16, 2018 23:23:05 GMT
You're only off by 500 to 600 years. Whatever! You get the gist. Does it diminish the argument? You give the correct date and I will edit it to make you happy, of course with an edited notation. ![](https://s26.postimg.org/6m0mtnt09/angel.gif) Genesis was written sometime during the 5th or 6th century BC. You're welcome.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 16, 2018 23:35:30 GMT
First, you said, "the earth were created BEFORE the start of the creative days," which means that Gen. 1:1 is NOT a part of the first creation day. But now that someone has taken note of that statement, you get all slippery about it and say that Gen 1:1 "is NOT REFERENCED as part of the first creative day" - words that mean that it COULD STILL VERY WELL be part of that day rather than before it. So which is it? Was the earth created before the start of the creation days or not before?
OK, let's go with what i said at first if that makes you happy No, let's go with what your answer actually is. This is the third time I ask for clear answer to this point that you brought up. Which is it? Was the earth created before the start of the creation days or not before?
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 16, 2018 23:49:35 GMT
OK, let's go with what i said at first if that makes you happy No, let's go with what your answer actually is. This is the third time I ask for clear answer to this point that you brought up. Which is it? Was the earth created before the start of the creation days or not before?
Wait didn't you quote me saying that? To be clear are you wanting me to say: or are you wanting me to say it again? This is not dazzling me. I know. I'll say it again, but I will use italics the writer of Genesis is not an astronaut but he also clearly was aware that the heavens and the earth were created before the start of the creative days that focus on the earth.Do you see it now or do I need to dumb it down some more?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 17, 2018 0:02:43 GMT
Whatever! You get the gist. Does it diminish the argument? You give the correct date and I will edit it to make you happy, of course with an edited notation. ![](https://s26.postimg.org/6m0mtnt09/angel.gif) Genesis was written sometime during the 5th or 6th century BC. You're welcome. Thanks and done. Would you be interested in a part time position as my Arlonesque encyclopaedia, dictionary and thesaurus? The pay is not good, butt you get a lot of kudos, which might appeal to you! A written application is necessary, and it should fit on a 5" X 3" index card. Previous experience not required. You have to be cute looking and all guns must be left at the door. Dogs welcome.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 17, 2018 0:41:02 GMT
I know. I'll say it again, but I will use italics the writer of Genesis is not an astronaut but he also clearly was aware that the heavens and the earth were created before the start of the creative days that focus on the earth.And there's your other escape hatch to keep avoiding the question. Since there is the possibility that YOU don't count the first creation day as one that focuses on the earth (whatever you exactly mean by that), you STILL won't say whether the earth was created BEFORE the creation days began or not before they began, no matter how many times or how plainly I ask you. Obviously, you are afraid to answer, so you engage in your signature greasy, shuffling evasions. Silly of me to have hoped for anything more from you.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 17, 2018 1:51:01 GMT
I know. I'll say it again, but I will use italics the writer of Genesis is not an astronaut but he also clearly was aware that the heavens and the earth were created before the start of the creative days that focus on the earth.And there's your other escape hatch to keep avoiding the question. Since there is the possibility that YOU don't count the first creation day as one that focuses on the earth (whatever you exactly mean by that), you STILL won't say whether the earth was created BEFORE the creation days began or not before they began, no matter how many times or how plainly I ask you. Obviously, you are afraid to answer, so you engage in your signature greasy, shuffling evasions. Silly of me to have hoped for anything more from you.
But I did say that. You quoted me and I requoted myself. I used italics for goodness sake. Wait...Are you thinking that everything was created on the first day mentioned in Genesis? Why would anyone think that? Nvm, that can't be right...
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 17, 2018 1:52:30 GMT
It's kinda amazing FF never remembers these "discussions".
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 19, 2018 13:21:38 GMT
FF: If McDonalds was omnipotent then you might have a point. It might be noted too that Ray Kroc's innovation with the fast food chain was chiefly a matter of time-and-motion efficiency. So to make the same comparison: a week to prepare a burger and fries when the meal could also be whistled up in 2 mins would be a poor, and inefficient choice. Cool: Point is being missed. Assuming omnipotence, there's no reason for a creator with unlimited power and unlimited time to get thigs done quickly per your estimation. I raised this point since I remember another Xian a week or so ago here specifically telling me that 'efficiency' (or more exactly the lack of it), when perceived in his preferred deity would be one thing making faith much more difficult. The point is, still, that it is hard to argue that it is more efficient to make creation, through a bit more each day over a week when it could by any omniscient deity simply be made instantaneously. But perhaps an extended session of creation gave the Almighty more pleasure? A bit like a slow jerk off? And, if all-powerful, all-seeing god is the measure of all things, then it ought to be the measure of the most efficient way to work possible. So once again: is taking a week to achieve what could be done all at once 'efficient'? Saying 'God can do what He wants' just avoids the question. Indeed. Which rather argues against the literalist, fundamentalist view of Genesis, such as Cody and his ilk would insist on, since what is written by men as opposed to gods can be wrong. This is one why troublesome questions about the narrative progressions in Genesis have a natural place. For instance when one wonders why as described in Genesis the plants were presumed growing before the sun was created, this is likely because the early writers did not know of photosynthesis. The stars (sun) were created after 'dark' and 'light', 12 verses later, is the point my friend. Unless God was doing everything by the illumination of his cigar lighter, what light was there to be had? There was no sun to rise until verse 14. In fact no lights in the heavens at all including the moon. But that's OK since we now know Cody was just talking about a 'creative day' and not a solar one lol. And your immediate point, which might apply to the 'day' or 'morning' in theory, is more difficult to apply to the Genesis mention of an 'evening' too, in v.6 - again before a sun was made. 'Creative days' do not appear in the text, just in fundamentalist Cody's recent special pleading, and so it is an unbiblical exegesis. Since I was addressing a literalist in the first place and I have no idea what sort of Genesis you are happy with - the 'business' was with Cody, and not you. Many literalists take exactly this view. I just ask the obvious questions thrown up by such an approach to the text. It would be best to remember that, (as I do, as a non-fundamentalist) that, ultimately, Genesis was probably not intended to be strictly logical since it is not intended to be literally true, instead just providing a necessary, memorable opening myth for primitive listeners to get on with. My obvious questions in this thread over the internal logic are really addressed to a fundamentalist mind-set, i.e. assuming their frame of understanding to critique it. Unless you are one such, (as you might be in defending that particular interpretation of scripture), this exchange between us over details is rather all a bit daft. Shall we next argue who created non-seed bearing plants, since God apparently made the seeders?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 19, 2018 13:24:05 GMT
Now THERE'S an assertion worth examining. And since I don't wish to be accused of mischaracterizing your view, let's be completely clear. You are saying that the EARTH was created NOT in that six creation day period, but that earth was created at some point BEFORE those six days even began. Correct?
I am not saying this at all. Because I did not write it lol
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 19, 2018 13:33:22 GMT
you must be that special kind of stupid that doesn't remember things as well.... I remember how I told you how a personal insult isn't an argument. It still isn't. Please link to where you and I have discussed Genesis previously. Or indeed where I have discussed the topic anywhere on this board. Go! It would be better if you just applied yourself to making an answer. You will be surprised how much more interesting it can be. The question of God's efficiency (or not) has occupied people more than you might know intjness.wordpress.com/2016/05/16/gods-efficiency/ philosophy.lander.edu/intro/cause.shtml Poor old stupid Aquinas, eh? Who cares anyway? I understand that you have nothing but insults, it appears. Nope, still don't see an rebuttal... just rudeness. Since this originated as an exchange between myself and strident fundamentalist Cody then, why are you still here mediating between the 'stupid' and those you don't care about then, lol? Whatever. Have a good day now.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 19, 2018 13:52:23 GMT
Thanks for pointing out that you're unoriginal as well as boring. People have asked stupid questions for a very long time... also nothing new. Why do you think that a being that is immortal/beyond time/always existed-always will (however the hell you want to phrase it) would be in a hurry to do anything? It's a non-argument. There... No insults, ya dumbfuck. ![](https://s26.postimg.org/b114zbst5/evil4.gif) Sorry about not quoting your last post... It was getting a bit cluttered.. and I'm not very efficient when it comes to the mechanics of this site. ![](https://s26.postimg.org/c2xjcn7h5/none.gif)
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 19, 2018 14:00:09 GMT
tpfkar Thanks for pointing out that you're unoriginal as well as boring. People have asked stupid questions for a very long time... also nothing new. Why do you think that a being that is immortal/beyond time/always existed-always will (however the hell you want to phrase it) would be in a hurry to do anything? It's a non-argument.
There... No insults, ya dumbfuck. ![](https://s26.postimg.org/b114zbst5/evil4.gif) Sorry about not quoting your last post... It was getting a bit cluttered.. and I'm not very efficient when it comes to the mechanics of this site. ![](https://s26.postimg.org/c2xjcn7h5/none.gif) It's a lot of fun how upset even talking about this gets the indoctrinated quasi-religious. The "I can't face it, but it's old, so THERE" "argument" is always amusing, especially when accompanied by such overt heartburn. words to live by
|
|