Originally posted by sumydidYes, I agree. But when it says God made, rather than create it could
My bad on the 3rd/4th day. I was typing quickly and didn't do any reviewing or editing.
Though the bible doesn't use the exact word "created," wouldn't it be fair to interpret God saying, "Let their be..." as the act of creating?
refer to He made something happen instead of an act of creation.
Originally posted by sumydidBut your omnipotent god has the one big problem, which is he can do anything so anything - including planting evidence for his non-existance - is possible.
In a very, very strange twist of fate, I see wolfgang arguing one of my favorite points that I use against skeptics, only he's using it against a Christian!
Bizarre!
All too often I hear the argument from skeptics that the biblical creation story can't be true because plants need sunlight, etc. It's like, "give me a break, we are talking about an all-powerful Creator who ostensibly can make ANYTHING happen."
Thanks wolfgang. Seriously.
Whenever we ask how its because god can.
Whenever we ask why its because thats what god wants.
Its so obviously ridiculous - which is why, when someone starts using logic and scientific argument to present their interpretation of the bible it is quite comical.
Originally posted by wolfgang59I am sure God planted evidence to trick you and is getting a good
But your omnipotent god has the one big problem, which is he can do anything so anything - including planting evidence for his non-existance - is possible.
Whenever we ask how its because god can.
Whenever we ask why its because thats what god wants.
Its so obviously ridiculous - which is why, when someone starts using logic and scientific argument to present their interpretation of the bible it is quite comical.
laugh right now.
Originally posted by wolfgang59If God did it all in 6 24-hour days then there would be no problem,
Someone who can make the entire universe in 6 days would surely not have trouble keeping plants alive without sunlight!
Strange how you use logical, scientific reasoning to argue against a view on a supernatural event.
as you said. Six 24-hour days seems reasonable.
Therefore, we have solved it.
Originally posted by RJHinds6 24-hour days?
If God did it all in 6 24-hour days then there would be no problem,
as you said. Six 24-hour days seems reasonable.
Therefore, we have solved it.
what is an hour? (3600 seconds?)
The definition of a second was last updated in 1999.
Therefore you have solved nothing.
2 edits
Originally posted by vistesd
I also owe you and apology for lashing out at you unfairly some time back. I was wrong; I apologize.
[b]I think there is ground to view the two words as not always necessarily the same in meaning.
My initial thinking is that you’re right, and you have put it perfectly. Sometimes Jewish translators use “create” for b’riah, and I think some distinction between them. And likely that is what you what you were getting at. (Am I rusty!)[/b]
I also owe you and apology for lashing out at you unfairly some time back. I was wrong; I apologize.
It is forgiven. I probably got on your last nerve.
This activity goes best when I pray before and after posting, which is not always.
I think there is ground to view the two words as not always necessarily the same in meaning.
My initial thinking is that you’re right, and you have put it perfectly. Sometimes Jewish translators use “create” for b’riah, and I think sometimes “made”. But I’m going from dim recall (even if I still am able to remember a bit of my Hebrew without looking it up—and it was never as extensive as it should have been anyway).
I do not read Hebrew. I recall G.H. Pember saying that without revelation, it is doubtful that humans would have a word dedicated completely to the idea of something coming into being from nothing at all.
So, he says there is some overlap between bara and asah. But to expect a word which has NO other meaning except creation from no previous existing material, in his opinion, would only exist because of the speaking of God to man.
What do you think about that ?
There is some really fascinating expositions of Genesis from a Jewish MIT science eprofessor. I have no firm opinion on it yet. But he certainly did his homework in both science and the Hebrew language of Genesis:
Schreoder is the professor's name.
Now this guy is not an evangelical Christian. So give me a little credit for open mindedness.
&NR=1
I set aside my Jewish studies a couple of years ago now, I think. Maybe I need to get back to it; and the only way I ever do that is in a participatory manner—e.g., observing Sabbath (even if in a heterodox way). And Torah study is a central practice. We’ll see…. Be well.
Originally posted by jaywillThank you. I think, offhand, that Pember has to be correct: the limits of our language are often the limits of our understanding. There are four words in Hebrew (again, I’m going from memeory, so I might not get it exactly: atzilut, emanation; yetzirah, formation, b’ria, creation; and asiyah (from asah) making, or actuality. (I’m not sure I have them in proper order.) There is a Hebrew blessing: Baruch atah Adonai eloheinu, melech ha’olam, oseh ma’aseh b’reisheet: “Blessed are you YHVH our god, ruler of the universe, who makes the making of in-the-beginning.” I just happened to be reminded of it.I also owe you and apology for lashing out at you unfairly some time back. I was wrong; I apologize.
It is forgiven. I probably got on your last nerve.
This activity goes best when I pray before and after posting, which is not always.
I think there is ground to view the two words as not always necessarily the s ...[text shortened]... n if in a heterodox way). And Torah study is a central practice. We’ll see…. Be well.
Just because you argue your own position and beliefs does not make you close-minded! My computer is acting up—I’ll be back. Take care.
Originally posted by wolfgang59You are trying to be too technical. An estimation is close enough for our
6 24-hour days?
what is an hour? (3600 seconds?)
The definition of a second was last updated in 1999.
Therefore you have solved nothing.
purposes. After all scientist use estimations all the time and it seems to
work okay for them.
Originally posted by RJHindsIt is not the accuracy i am questioning - just want a simple (estimated) definition of what a day means. Saying 24 hours is hopeless if you define an hour as 1/24 of a day isnt it?
You are trying to be too technical. An estimation is close enough for our
purposes. After all scientist use estimations all the time and it seems to
work okay for them.