Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

AudienceOfOne wrote:

Adonai wrote:

FK wrote:

Adonai wrote:

AudienceOfOne wrote:

SourWorms wrote:

Trackaholic wrote:And yes sourworms, the 7 days of creation were symbolic, seeing as the 24 hour clock is a creation of man. And seeing as god controlled the sun, and thus the evening and dawn. one day could have represented 5 minutes or 5 years.

so you admit that the 7 day creation story was symbolic and not to be taken literally

no, they were still days, just not days like we know them to be now.

How do you suggest god defined a day? considering a day is defined by a planet rotating on its axis.

God never defined a day, it was the person who wrote it.

So you therefore admit that some, and likely most, of the Bible's content was invented by its writer?

the scriptures were God breathed.

How can you acknowledge that days could not have been relevent nor existed during the imagined "creation," and yet simultaneously suggest the scriptures were God breathed?

FK wrote:

Adonai wrote:

FK wrote:

Adonai wrote:

AudienceOfOne wrote:

SourWorms wrote:

Trackaholic wrote:And yes sourworms, the 7 days of creation were symbolic, seeing as the 24 hour clock is a creation of man. And seeing as god controlled the sun, and thus the evening and dawn. one day could have represented 5 minutes or 5 years.

so you admit that the 7 day creation story was symbolic and not to be taken literally

no, they were still days, just not days like we know them to be now.

How do you suggest god defined a day? considering a day is defined by a planet rotating on its axis.

God never defined a day, it was the person who wrote it.

So you therefore admit that some, and likely most, of the Bible's content was invented by its writer?

No, I'm saying the Bible is written by a person, so it would have human terms in it. If it was written by God, it would be difficult to understand.

that's a really good point. never thought of that.

Adonai wrote:

AudienceOfOne wrote:

Adonai wrote:

FK wrote:

Adonai wrote:

AudienceOfOne wrote:

SourWorms wrote:

Trackaholic wrote:And yes sourworms, the 7 days of creation were symbolic, seeing as the 24 hour clock is a creation of man. And seeing as god controlled the sun, and thus the evening and dawn. one day could have represented 5 minutes or 5 years.

so you admit that the 7 day creation story was symbolic and not to be taken literally

no, they were still days, just not days like we know them to be now.

How do you suggest god defined a day? considering a day is defined by a planet rotating on its axis.

God never defined a day, it was the person who wrote it.

So you therefore admit that some, and likely most, of the Bible's content was invented by its writer?

the scriptures were God breathed.

How can you acknowledge that days could not have been relevent nor existed during the imagined "creation," and yet simultaneously suggest the scriptures were God breathed?

those 2 have nothing to do with eachother. or am i mis understanding your question?

AudienceOfOne wrote:

Adonai wrote:

AudienceOfOne wrote:

Adonai wrote:

FK wrote:

Adonai wrote:

AudienceOfOne wrote:

SourWorms wrote:

Trackaholic wrote:And yes sourworms, the 7 days of creation were symbolic, seeing as the 24 hour clock is a creation of man. And seeing as god controlled the sun, and thus the evening and dawn. one day could have represented 5 minutes or 5 years.

so you admit that the 7 day creation story was symbolic and not to be taken literally

no, they were still days, just not days like we know them to be now.

How do you suggest god defined a day? considering a day is defined by a planet rotating on its axis.

God never defined a day, it was the person who wrote it.

So you therefore admit that some, and likely most, of the Bible's content was invented by its writer?

the scriptures were God breathed.

How can you acknowledge that days could not have been relevent nor existed during the imagined "creation," and yet simultaneously suggest the scriptures were God breathed?

those 2 have nothing to do with eachother. or am i mis understanding your question?

When you say "God breathed," you mean "the word of god," do you not? Therefore, to suggest that man has twisted this "word" with his own little inventions would compromise the validity of this statement entirely. Who is to say that if this piece of information was invented or influenced by a man, the bible in its entirety is human invented (which it likely is).

Adonai wrote:

AudienceOfOne wrote:

Adonai wrote:

AudienceOfOne wrote:

Adonai wrote:

FK wrote:

Adonai wrote:

AudienceOfOne wrote:

SourWorms wrote:

Trackaholic wrote:And yes sourworms, the 7 days of creation were symbolic, seeing as the 24 hour clock is a creation of man. And seeing as god controlled the sun, and thus the evening and dawn. one day could have represented 5 minutes or 5 years.

so you admit that the 7 day creation story was symbolic and not to be taken literally

no, they were still days, just not days like we know them to be now.

How do you suggest god defined a day? considering a day is defined by a planet rotating on its axis.

God never defined a day, it was the person who wrote it.

So you therefore admit that some, and likely most, of the Bible's content was invented by its writer?

the scriptures were God breathed.

How can you acknowledge that days could not have been relevent nor existed during the imagined "creation," and yet simultaneously suggest the scriptures were God breathed?

those 2 have nothing to do with eachother. or am i mis understanding your question?

When you say "God breathed," you mean "the word of god," do you not? Therefore, to suggest that man has twisted this "word" with his own little inventions would compromise the validity of this statement entirely. Who is to say that if this piece of information was invented or influenced by a man, the bible in its entirety is human invented (which it likely is).

Replace twisted with translated.

Why then, did God create different languages? In what language did he write the scriptures, if he was in fact the author.

Adonai wrote:

AudienceOfOne wrote:

Adonai wrote:

AudienceOfOne wrote:

Adonai wrote:

FK wrote:

Adonai wrote:

AudienceOfOne wrote:

SourWorms wrote:

Trackaholic wrote:And yes sourworms, the 7 days of creation were symbolic, seeing as the 24 hour clock is a creation of man. And seeing as god controlled the sun, and thus the evening and dawn. one day could have represented 5 minutes or 5 years.

so you admit that the 7 day creation story was symbolic and not to be taken literally

no, they were still days, just not days like we know them to be now.

How do you suggest god defined a day? considering a day is defined by a planet rotating on its axis.

God never defined a day, it was the person who wrote it.

So you therefore admit that some, and likely most, of the Bible's content was invented by its writer?

the scriptures were God breathed.

How can you acknowledge that days could not have been relevent nor existed during the imagined "creation," and yet simultaneously suggest the scriptures were God breathed?

those 2 have nothing to do with eachother. or am i mis understanding your question?

When you say "God breathed," you mean "the word of god," do you not? Therefore, to suggest that man has twisted this "word" with his own little inventions would compromise the validity of this statement entirely. Who is to say that if this piece of information was invented or influenced by a man, the bible in its entirety is human invented (which it likely is).

God spoke through men to write the Bible. I don't believe that man has twisted the word.

SourWorms wrote:Why then, did God create different languages? In what language did he write the scriptures, if he was in fact the author.

He didn't write it, he inspired those who did write it to do so. My guess is that it was in Hebrew or some local language. Maybe Greek seeing as that is used a lot in bible translation examples.

SourWorms wrote:Why then, did God create different languages? In what language did he write the scriptures, if he was in fact the author.

shouldn't you know that if you are so experienced in this stuff? i'm not completely sure, but wasn't it all written in Hebrew and Greek?

Actually it depends on which author you are speaking of. The Bible was a compilation of many different stories passed down through generations by spoken word. They were no doubt twisted and changed as with any game of telephone. i.e. Jonah swallowed by a whale? I think not.

The Gospels especially were written in different languages originally and at different times.

In addition, the first two chapters of Genesis were written hundreds of years apart. The first chapter being written far after genesis 2.

SourWorms wrote:Actually it depends on which author you are speaking of. The Bible was a compilation of many different stories passed down through generations by spoken word. They were no doubt twisted and changed as with any game of telephone. i.e. Jonah swallowed by a whale? I think not.

The Gospels especially were written in different languages originally and at different times.

In addition, the first two chapters of Genesis were written hundreds of years apart. The first chapter being written far after genesis 2.

it was not a game of telephone, for the NT atleast. the people who witnessed what was happening wrote it down.

No, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written decades after Jesus died. Especially John, which was written 100-150 years after the death of Jesus. Those are not the words of Jesus, because none of the authors of the gospels were there.

And look at the book of Revelation, I always find it funny how people look at this book literally while it is clearly symbolic in nature.

God can put words in the authors mouth without him literally having to tell them...he is God he can do anything...he just put the words in their heads that he wanted them to write

You people have still failed to answer my question. In the imagined time of creation, days did not exist. You then suggested this piece of information was invented by man and therefore not the word of god. How then can you say for sure the rest of the bible's content is not in fact man invented?

Adonai wrote:You people have still failed to answer my question. In the imagined time of creation, days did not exist. You then suggested this piece of information was invented by man and therefore not the word of god. How then can you say for sure the rest of the bible's content is not in fact man invented?

It wasn't invented by man, when God spoke to them in their heads they heard it as a day (like on Earth) because that was how they understood it. God is too complex to be understood by a human sometimes.

Why would God have restriced himself to such lowly human measures of time then? or is this whole instance subject to vast variance in interpretation.

SourWorms wrote:No, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written decades after Jesus died. Especially John, which was written 100-150 years after the death of Jesus. Those are not the words of Jesus, because none of the authors of the gospels were there.

And look at the book of Revelation, I always find it funny how people look at this book literally while it is clearly symbolic in nature.

and how did you get that info? and you can't really say that in the first place, because John is not radically different from the other Gospels.

and i have no idea what to even think of Revelation, honestly. it's really confusing.

FK wrote:

Adonai wrote:You people have still failed to answer my question. In the imagined time of creation, days did not exist. You then suggested this piece of information was invented by man and therefore not the word of god. How then can you say for sure the rest of the bible's content is not in fact man invented?

It wasn't invented by man, when God spoke to them in their heads they heard it as a day (like on Earth) because that was how they understood it. God is too complex to be understood by a human sometimes.

So men heard voices in their heads? and you say that my ideas are retarded...

Adonai wrote:Why would God have restriced himself to such lowly human measures of time then? or is this whole instance subject to vast variance in interpretation.

maybe because of what FK said, humans wouldn't understand it if he put it his way.

AudienceOfOne wrote:

SourWorms wrote:No, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written decades after Jesus died. Especially John, which was written 100-150 years after the death of Jesus. Those are not the words of Jesus, because none of the authors of the gospels were there.

And look at the book of Revelation, I always find it funny how people look at this book literally while it is clearly symbolic in nature.

and how did you get that info? and you can't really say that in the first place, because John is not radically different from the other Gospels.

and i have no idea what to even think of Revelation, honestly. it's really confusing.

It is well accepted by theologians that the first of the gospels was written around 30 years after the death of Jesus.

And Revelation has been mostly decoded as a commentary on the state of the Roman Empire after the death of Jesus

SourWorms wrote:

FK wrote:

Adonai wrote:You people have still failed to answer my question. In the imagined time of creation, days did not exist. You then suggested this piece of information was invented by man and therefore not the word of god. How then can you say for sure the rest of the bible's content is not in fact man invented?

It wasn't invented by man, when God spoke to them in their heads they heard it as a day (like on Earth) because that was how they understood it. God is too complex to be understood by a human sometimes.

So men heard voices in their heads? and you say that my ideas are retarded...

not exactly that, but they knew what God wanted them to write.

AudienceOfOne wrote:

Adonai wrote:Why would God have restriced himself to such lowly human measures of time then? or is this whole instance subject to vast variance in interpretation.

maybe because of what FK said, humans wouldn't understand it if he put it his way.

Then, therefore, much of the information in the bible is symbolic (not to be taken literally)? weird...

so they essentially made it up, but believed it is what God wanted

SourWorms wrote:

AudienceOfOne wrote:

SourWorms wrote:No, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written decades after Jesus died. Especially John, which was written 100-150 years after the death of Jesus. Those are not the words of Jesus, because none of the authors of the gospels were there.

And look at the book of Revelation, I always find it funny how people look at this book literally while it is clearly symbolic in nature.

and how did you get that info? and you can't really say that in the first place, because John is not radically different from the other Gospels.

and i have no idea what to even think of Revelation, honestly. it's really confusing.

It is well accepted by theologians that the first of the gospels was written around 30 years after the death of Jesus.

And Revelation has been mostly decoded as a commentary on the state of the Roman Empire after the death of Jesus

first of all, i'd like to know how they got that info. and second, what is wrong with 30 years? matthew could have easily been alive then still.

there is no way that they are talking about the state of the gvernment at that time. they would have had to BS a lot of things to come to that conclusion.

Adonai wrote:

AudienceOfOne wrote:

Adonai wrote:Why would God have restriced himself to such lowly human measures of time then? or is this whole instance subject to vast variance in interpretation.

maybe because of what FK said, humans wouldn't understand it if he put it his way.

Then, therefore, much of the information in the bible is symbolic (not to be taken literally)? weird...

no, it would have been put a certain way so that we could understand it.