That was quite a post Baptist Believer! I'm actually very interested in what you have to say and your ideas about the truth of Genesis. I realize I might be in the minority here, but is there a place online to find out more?
A literal 6 24-hr days?
Discussion in 'Creation vs. Evolution' started by john6:63, May 8, 2003.
Page 3 of 13
-
I have found a reference to the intrinsically brightest quasar known, an object called APM 08279+5255. Its intrinsic brightness is given as -34. This means that it is 4000 times as bright as 3C 273. That would put it at about 10^15 times the sun, as you say.
To have the same brightness at the distance to the center of the galaxy requires about 3 million times the brightness of 3C 273. So now you are talking a brightness of greater than 10^18 the brightness of the sun.
Even an object that was 10^15 would still be around one thousandth of the brightness of the sun. Still pretty dim, but you are finally getting into something where you can discuss what fraction of the sun's light do you need to differentiate night and day.
I should have dug a little more (I realized my reading comprehension problem a little bit late)but we are still quite a bit dimmer than sunlight.
And there is still the matter that our supermassive black hole is on the order of miilions of times the mass of the sun and these superluminous quasars are on the order of billions or tens of billions of solar masses. That would make a HUGE difference.
Thanks for the quick critique. There was a mistake of picking an average quasar rather than the extreme possibility but we are still three orders of magnitude short on the extreme example. The other side is that the few million solar mass black hole in our galaxy is much smaller than the 100 million to 10 billion range for quasars.
[ May 09, 2003, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: UTEOTW ] -
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm
-
</font>[/QUOTE]LOL! :D Yesssss . . . you will believe in evolution soon, my friend, we have our ways . . . .
No one will be forced against their will. Like the dawning of consciousness that the earth moves around the sun, the knowledge will simply increase and spread over time. It is happening as we speak. In the halls of your church, someone will say to another, well I believe God could have created earth over a period of many ages and another will nod in agreement. Please do not offend these in your custody by threatening their salvation or attacking their sincerity. -
In this case the "Facts" are blatant and obvious to even the most basic sciences.
Then the compromised Christian evilutionist steps and in inserts the mythology "evening and morning ARE NOT one cycle, one Day, one rotation of the earth".
Who's dreaming up "stories" there my friends?
Evolutionists reject even the most BASIC of "facts" in favor of their own mythologies.
And the result is - the corruption of the Gospel message itself.
But God's OWN summary statement is "SIX DAYS YOU shall labor and do your work ... FOR in SIX days God CREATED the heavens and the earth the seas and all that is in them and rested the Seventh DAY". Literal - DAY FOR DAY equivalence, same author, same context, same word. Iron clad assignment.
In Christ,
Bob -
Can't keep the veiled ad-homs out of your post Bob?
How can there be an evening and a morning without a "SUN"?
I'm actually hesitating to comment further as you already seem enraged. -
"And there was evening and Morning, One Day" Genesis 1:5
Is that the "hard question"?
You seem to be asking the question "What is it like to be infinite God".
Is that really the "problem" - that you yourself "don't know how to create a living planetary system"??
I'm thinking that is just the obvious part.
quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impossible to squirm loose from that - but we have "some Christians" for whom the path of "compromised Christianity" is the only choice. Not matter how muc scripture refutes it
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Christ,
Bob -
Why is a sun necessary if God made the plants survive without one before hand?
Also why are you bringing up evolution? What does it have to do with this thread?
I sincerely pray that you step back a minute and quit your attack on my belief of Jesus being my personal savior. -
You question (again) is of the form
"Why does grass grow if God was able to feed people with bread that fell from heaven".
"Why is there dry land - if God was able to keep all of Noah's family alive on the boat without any dry land".
"Why is there a Bible - if God spoke directly to Israel at Sinai??"
Your "WHY CAN God do TWO THINGS" form of questioning - is not compelling.
quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you mean "why would an infinite God create the Sun AFTER creating light and demonstrating that He COULD sustain life even WITHOUT the Sun by His supernatural power alone?".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You seem to be asking the question "What is it like to be infinite God".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is that really the "problem" - that you yourself "don't know how to create a living planetary system"??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is that supposed to "prove something". Given that rotation of the earth causes a single point on earth to go through an entire sequence of day and night and THIS is the most "direct" way to explicitly identify a LITERAL 24 hour period (better than "and a little evening plus the entire morning followed by more evening were ONE day").
I'm thinking that is just the obvious part.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
come on - be at least a little convincing in your responses.
So IF you did not fIRST come to the text with the bias of evolutionary mythology - the obvious and explicit meaning of the text would REMAIN as it was to the PRIMARY audience of Moses' day - literal DAYS.
Only the evolutionary "bias" argues against the plain and obvious structure of the text.
Bob -
Bob, we understand clearly where you're coming from.
But all this about how the Bible has to be interpreted is one thing, and the reality of what the earth's history is another.
If the Bible said flying insects have four legs and they really have six, which do I believe? What do I do about that?
We have the same situation with the age of the earth. There is overwhelming evidence that the age of the earth is about 4.5 billion years and of the universe about 13 billion years.
Many of us cannot bring ourselves to disregard these facts.
If I am psychologically incapable of deciding the earth is only 6000 or 8000 years old, what is your advice about how I should view scripture? Would you have me disown my faith? -
#1. What is the Bible saying - just read it - try not to READ INTO it your evolutionist mythology.
That is a "BIG step forward".
As you say - you may choose to "Believe in your evolutionist mythology" as science and keep it separate from what you read in the Bible. But you should at "least" be able to tell what you are reading in the Bible EVEN in that case.
Bob -
Oh and please do not presume things about my opinion based on the predjudice you hold for those who accept evolution. I hate to even mention it, but similar thinking lead to a 'holocaust'.
-
I also wanted to add Bob, I'm fairly certain you don't know much about evolution. You are attacking what you do not understand.
There are people on this board who have a grasp of what evolution is, and they disagree with some of it's tenets (such as macroevolution). Which I can accept. However to not understand a concept and rail against it, that quite frankly is frightening.
Even more so when it's done by a fellow Christian. -
A couple of things, Meatros, to clarify a bit of what appears to be some misunderstanding here.
First, many consider Moses to be the author of Genesis and that God divinely revealed the material to him. I don't agree with that, as I think the material and evidence indicating Genesis to be a series of eyewitness accounts is pretty convincing. However, even in that case, it would have been Moses who did the final editing and putting all the documents together and, as such, Genesis is known as one of the books of Moses, as are the next four. These five comprise the Torah, or "the Law."
Secondly, I think you will find that the early church mostly never questioned the literal accuracy of Genesis, including a six 24-hour day creation. I have a link for you here. Please, please take the time for it. It is well-written, easily read, and extremely well researched. Go get a cup of coffee or tea or a Coke or whatever suits your fancy and enjoy --
http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Contents.htm -
Among the early Christians who realized that a literal 6 day Genesis was not possible were St. Augustine, St. Clements, and Origen, all among the most respected and influential Christians of all time.
-
THIS Origen???
THIS Augustine?
from http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/augustinefather.htm
THIS Clement?
from http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter3.htm
In the meantime, Clement of Alexandria placed creation of Adam at 5592 BC, Origen at less than 10,000 BC and Augustine at less than 5600 BC
These ARE the 'most respected and influential' RC church fathers you are referring to, right, Galatian? -
quote:Bob to Meatros
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Try to be convincing.
You question (again) is of the form
"Why does grass grow if God was able to feed people with bread that fell from heaven".
"Why is there dry land - if God was able to keep all of Noah's family alive on the boat without any dry land".
"Why is there a Bible - if God spoke directly to Israel at Sinai??"
Your "WHY CAN God do TWO THINGS" form of questioning - is not compelling.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instead of answering the point - you complain that your fallacy is being exposed.
That is not a compelling form of argument.
The ball remains - in your court.
quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just did above - I showed that there is NO MORE effective way to SHOW the cycle. Instead of coming up with a MORE effective way - you simply punt.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The point PRIOR to that was the one addressing your "Why did God solve the problem one way in Day ONE and THEN provide the SUN as an expanded solution to that problem in Day FOUR - I don't get it".
I simply pointed out that "your not getting HOW to create a living planetary system" has nothing to do with what "God could or could not do".
You are arguing "proof by puzzle" saying that IF a novice can not figure out WHY God did everyhting that He did in creating our solar system - then GOD probably did not do it.
Your premise is seriously flawed.
That has been shown.
It is "logical" to have light, dry land, plants, sun and moon etc.
What is "not logical" is to insist that the novice can ALSO fully explain how to create the solar system AS GOD did it. It is not logical to "assume" that IF the novice is not as wise as God then God could not have done what HE claims to have done.
Your "premise" in your rebuttal is not logical at all.
quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting "wild gyration" in logic - are you proposing that God was "showing creation" to Moses - from the viewpoint of one standing "on the North Pole"???
come on - be at least a little convincing in your responses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am arguing that the SAME sequence of "Evening and Morning" that we see in the rest of scripture "is the perspective" that we have in Genesis. Basically - I am arguing "the obvious".
You complain each time one of your ploys is shown to be illogical, inconsistent and without merit and insist that "new threads be opened" to address each one of your fallacies. That is just not a compelling form of rebuttal. Why not try to advance your point instead?
quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
{Evolution) has everything to do with this thread. The Bible is clear "by BOTH Christian and Atheist AND Jewish standards" that the language of Genesis 1 (AND the Summary of that chapter in Exodus 20:8-11) uses LITERAL 24 Hour day LANGUAGE. Nothing about it "suggests UNDEFINED TIME" nothing about "EVENING and Morning was ONE DAY" suggests "undefined Time".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have pointed out that ONLY by bringing the bias of evolution's mytholgoies to the text FIRST - could you get to ANY OTHER view. As follows
quote:Bob--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So IF you did not fIRST come to the text with the bias of evolutionary mythology - the obvious and explicit meaning of the text would REMAIN as it was to the PRIMARY audience of Moses' day - literal DAYS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#1. No one today is arguing AGAINST the view of the Primary Audience taking this as a LITERAL 7 day week.
#2. No one today is arguing AGAINST the view of the Primary audience on any OTHER basis than evolutionism.
quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only the evolutionary "bias" argues against the plain and obvious structure of the text.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob -
NT authors delcare that Moses was the author.
BTW - thanks for the quotes on Origen.
Bob -
Seriously do you read my posts or do you already have a formulated diatribe for those with different views then you do? From all indications I could say the sky is green and you'd say "that's because you are an evolutionist".
For the final time: I am *NOT* questioning God's ability to do things. For you to stress the opposit is to simply NOT understand what I am addressing-which I have said repeatedly.
I am really overwhelmed by the sheer stubbornness in refusing to answer what I am asking.
For the last time, the assertion on the table was:
Genesis is well defined.
And for the final time, I said "No it isn't". You can bring up whatever you like but if it's not part of what the OP brought up it's a strawman and you are arguing with yourself because I'm fairly certain NO ONE IS ARGUING THE STRAWMAN YOU KEEP BRINGING UP. So either read what I've wrote and respond to it, or this will be the last time in this thread that I address your overwhelmingly obvious strawman.
My argument AGAIN is that Genesis is not well defined. YOU in fact are showing that I am right by telling me I can't argue from ignorance. Because something is not known to be true it can not be assumed to be true (or not true).
Well if I have to ASSUME HOW GOD CREATED SOMETHING then how is Genesis well defined??
Oh wait, you don't think they count? Let me remind you that the bible/Christianity is meant for all people, not just the ones YOU agree with.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it. -
Regarding Origen, Helen, the point was that he had a wide following among the early Christians. If you remember, we were talking about what the early Christians believed. Origen had a wide following among them. As far as being "RC church fathers", remember that the Catholic Church was the only Christian Church in existence at the time. A reasonable person would acknowledge that the early Church gave rise to both Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and various Protestant denominations.
We were discussing what the early Christians thought about creation. Fact is, as you learned, that even at the beginning, widely-respected Christian theologians knew that a literal 6-day creation was not consistent with Scripture. Augustine and Clements won out over Origen, but the point is this understanding of a figurative Genesis was not merely held by the faction that ultimately won out over the others. It was widely known.
The fact that most Christians thought that the world was considerably younger than it is, is understandable; scientists of the time didn't know any better, either.
But we don't hold Scripture as being at fault for references to the Earth as circular, with pillars.
Creationism, as we know it today, is a very recent doctrine.
[ May 12, 2003, 08:43 AM: Message edited by: The Galatian ]
Page 3 of 13