Discussion on the FSM- keep it clean/respectful

,

because this young earth crap is not within that realm.

 

hâyâh
haw-yaw'
A primitive root (compare H1933); to exist, that is, be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary): - beacon, X altogether, be (-come, accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), continue, do, faint, fall, + follow, happen, X have, last, pertain, quit (one-) self, require, X use.


Mano this is the meaning of the word (hayah) that was translated was in Genesis 1:2.

                                      

---

Genesis 1:2. And the earth was    (became) without form, and void; and darkness was  (came) upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.


The Bible only says that the renewed earth is 6,000 years old. Who knows how long ago it was that God actually created the earth?


Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Then vs 2 says it became messed up, which means he created it good in the first place and somebody damaged it, just like men are doing now.

Anyways what I am saying is the Bible in no way says the earth is 6,000 years old, that is wrong interpretation by men.

The Hebrew and Greek terms are available on e-sword, which is a program you have to download on your desktop, but it works over the internet.
You can download it here if you want it, it is free, they try to sell you other stuff but you don't have to buy any of it.


http://estudysource.com

Anyways what I am saying is the Bible in no way says the earth is 6,000 years old, that is wrong interpretation by men.

Glad to see you aren't on that side of the bandwagon, gidion!  I would be interested to get STO's interpretation of your post, though.



Now...if I could just get you to admit that life evolving over billions of years into its current forms also doesn't go against your Bible, then we'd be all set!

Anyways what I am saying is the Bible in no way says the earth is 6,000 years old, that is wrong interpretation by men.

Glad to see you aren't on that side of the bandwagon, gidion!  I would be interested to get STO's interpretation of your post, though.

I made this same point (as a possibility, not a definite) 90-some pages ago, yet you keep lumping me in automatically as a rigid, 6000-year old earth person.  Why do you hate me, Mano?


Now...if I could just get you to admit that life evolving over billions of years into its current forms also doesn't go against your Bible, then we'd be all set!

Fat chance, buddy!

"My dispute is with the idea that some time between 6000 and 10000 years ago, this God created the universe over a 6 day period.'

The Bible is text written by man via inspiration from God.   The "Church" dictated what did and did not get printed.  Many subsequent "books" have been omitted from its current version - but are still held to be gospel by most Christian factions.   You seem to forget that man only started recording his own history that long ago.  What a day is to God no one knows.  Remember Mano - if one is the All Powerful - than one has control over everything and could not possibly be bound by our concept of time and space.  So - in order for the writers to put into perspective in what they knew at that time - days were the most common form of time keeping - not the milli-seconds - etc - we have the luxury of using today.  Heck - even the Myans were captive by focusing on years and full decade cycles.

Point is - what you recognize as a 24 hour day may very easily amount to nothing more than a nano-second for a God.

The Bible could very easily be a book specifically designed for this planet - and there could be many like it across the universe specifically tailored for the highest intelligent beings on 1 billion other planets.  After all - if there is life on other planets - and there is a God - one has to make the correlation that god created the Heavens and those "Earths" as well - no?  Or - evolution had to go perfectly on those 1 billion planets to also bring forth life.  Come on Mano - I read no less than 7 or your posts were you called a poster naive because of his/her belief in a God (many referrences to Santa Clause - etc).  To any sane rational human being - evolution is the much more comical outline for life coming into existance.  Darwin was a dunce - and many of his colleagues thought he had a brain desease.  So do I!

The Bible is text written by man via inspiration from God.   The "Church" dictated what did and did not get printed.  Many subsequent "books" have been omitted from its current version - but are still held to be gospel by most Christian factions.

I've been saying that for over 100 pages, hb.  I think you have me all wrong.  I am not anti-Christian, or even anti-religion.  I don't believe in Christianity, or any major religion for that matter, but I can respect those beliefs in others.

My only fight, recently, in this thread has been with the concept of a young earth and/or with the attempted disproval of evolution.  I don't believe that either is a threat to religion or Christianity specifically.

What a day is to God no one knows.

I've seen this argument before, and that's fine.  Like I said, if you want to assign the creation of the universe some 11.5 billion years ago to a divine source, so be it.  If you want to say that the 6 days of creation are an allegory for those 11.5 billion years, I can get on board.  If you want to say that God had a guiding hand in the development and EVOLUTION of all species on the planet during that time...I can dig it.  You will get little argument from me.

The Bible could very easily be a book specifically designed for this planet - and there could be many like it across the universe specifically tailored for the highest intelligent beings on 1 billion other planets.  After all - if there is life on other planets - and there is a God - one has to make the correlation that god created the Heavens and those "Earths" as well - no?

What a fascinating concept.  So, would he have theoretically sent Jesus to these other planets as well?  Honestly, this statement has my imagination working overtime...very interesting.

Come on Mano - I read no less than 7 or your posts were you called a poster naive because of his/her belief in a God (many referrences to Santa Clause - etc).  To any sane rational human being - evolution is the much more comical outline for life coming into existance.

I have tried not to call people naive, specifically, but I have likened the Abrahamic God to a mythical figure...not sure about the Santa Clause thing specifically, but its possible.

What I believe is that man has created various "gods" over his time on this planet and the current god of the day is the Abrahamic one.  The beautiful thing about men is that they get smarter as they develop (or evolve ) and make their deities harder and harder to disprove.  Its pretty easy to look back at the previous ancient religions and scoff at how silly they were because the men who created them made them ridiculous.  This incarnation of a god has much better staying power because the men who created this one made him aloof, standoffish, so to speak.  We have no further REAL contact with this deity, so there is no way to really disprove it.  As long as someone believes, he exists.  Its brilliant really.

As for evolution, hb, being a "comical outline for life coming into existence", it would only be so for someone who has refused to educate himself properly on it.  First of all, and I apparently can't repeat it enough, evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life.  Secondly, there is no coincidence, or random chance, involved in evolution.  Life evolves as it needs to evolve in order to survive.  To any sane, rational human being who actually educates himself - evolution is the ONLY logical explanation for how life developed on this planet.

I made this same point (as a possibility, not a definite) 90-some pages ago, yet you keep lumping me in automatically as a rigid, 6000-year old earth person.  Why do you hate me, Mano?

Sorry LTS...I do tend to lump the anti-evolutionists and the Young Earthers together!! 

My bad, I will try to seperate the two a bit better since it appears we are getting a pretty strong split here.  We have several anti-evolutionists who don't prescribe, necessarily, to the young earth concept but, oddly, do prescribe to the creationist view of life on the planet.

I find those two concepts at odds with each other, but I'll try to reconcile it.

We have several anti-evolutionists who don't prescribe, necessarily, to the young earth concept but, oddly, do prescribe to the creationist view of life on the planet.

I find those two concepts at odds with each other, but I'll try to reconcile it.

So, Mano, why do you find these mutually exclusive (at odds).  I find it impossible to not believe that there is an Abrahamic God and that the earth is millions of years old.  It seems to me, if you are presented the evidence of actual age of the earth, and have a belief in God, the only rational thought seperating the two in combination is the possibility of "time frame"  (our day is a nano second to God), which will only satisfy mans' need to reconcile the time differentation... not God's, Who has no need to reconcile a time and space He does not even exist in (except for His time on earth as Jesus), only as a place for man to grow in love and faith.

This, I think, is only a problem for those who cannot or will not open their minds to the awesome power, intellect and will for and of God to do as He pleases, as He sees necessary, to create the people He wants (in best case scenario all of the people) to be with him eternally in the place we call heaven, He calls home.



MoS

So, Mano, why do you find these mutually exclusive (at odds).  I find it impossible to not believe that there is an Abrahamic God and that the earth is millions of years old.

That's not the part I have trouble reconciling, MoS.  Its the other end of the spectrum.  I find it difficult to understand how someone could believe in a billions of years old earth based on the scientific research that proves such, but then dismiss evolution as the process by which life developed on the planet because it goes against his faith.

You can believe in the Abrahamic God without believing that he created all life on the planet and planted it here in its current form.  To me, if you don't believe in evolution because it goes against your religion, I find it hard to accept that you believe in an earth that is billions of years old. 

It appears we have a few people that believe just that, so obviously it is my problem and not theirs.  I'm pretty open minded, so I'll get used to the idea!

"What a fascinating concept.  So, would he have theoretically sent Jesus to these other planets as well?  "
One would have to lend themselves to the conclusion that there is a small likelihood that not all intelligent beings are sinful and need "saving" from themselves - much like not animal species are violent - or eat meat - etc.  One would also have to conclude that God would provide an "out" for all of his creations - equally.   So with that conclusion comes the understanding that if God is a "just God" and loves all of his creations - if his son sacrificing himself for sin is the only way one's soul can be saved - then yes - He would almost assuredly have to have sent his son (s) to redeem all species who understand that God is all powerful and who have a sinful nature.  Otherwise - the God that Abram came to know couldn't not be a fair and loving God.

 

What I believe is that man has created various "gods" over his time on this planet and the current god of the day is the Abrahamic one.

This caught my eye in retrospect reading from your weekend work.  I have a problem with "god of the day" reference, as you will see in this link, a timetable of known events from earliest known history.  This link is very cool for all sorts of timeline events.

Adam was "created", roughly speaking, 4043 bc ...

Since the topic here is the "flavor of the day religion" concept, the Abrahamic God and His enduring presence from Abraham to King David to Jesus to us ... has spanned the sum and total., basically of the entirety of historic man....

hardly material for a "flavor of the day"  commentary, and a certain flaw in your rebuttal.



MoS

Adam was "created", roughly speaking, 4043 bc ...

Since the topic here is the "flavor of the day religion" concept, the Abrahamic God and His enduring presence from Abraham to King David to Jesus to us ... has spanned the sum and total., basically of the entirety of historic man....

hardly material for a "flavor of the day"  commentary, and a certain flaw in your rebuttal.

That's not really accurate, MoS.

Think about it.  While your link shows Adam as being created in 4043, that isn't the date when Judaism was first practiced.  Judaism can be traced back to about 1500 BC, not 4000. 

Even so, its hard to reconcile the original Abrahamic God of the Judaic scriptures with the current incarnation.  We've talked before about how different the God of the OT is from the God of the NT, but the main difference between the ancient Abrahamic God and our current version of Him is His active nature in our lives.

In the Old Testament, God was routinely interfering in the lives of men, much like the other ancient deities of the times.  As time passed, and man developed, this Abrahamic God become more and more aloof until it came to pass that he no longer had direct contact with "His people".

I've always found this convenient.  It shows just how maleable this particular God is.  Again, its a brilliant thing.  You have a single God instead of dozens of gods, so making minor changes over time that "evolve" this deity into something easy to reconcile for new generations is FAR easier than it was with other religions.  As man became more sophisticated and skeptical, it became more and more necessary for this God to be distant.

I've said it before, but it bares repeating...we are currently living in the most technologically advanced age in the history of mankind.  We ahve the technology to broadcast anthing we want to just about every household on the planet simultaneously.  Yet, this God chose a time of complete isolation to send his last major communication with His people in Jesus?  If he truly wanted us to be "saved" and to believe in Him, he would have continued to communicate with us into these times.  Why the sudden change?


So, yes, in so much as the God you currently worship is nothing like the one being worshipped in the early days of Judaism, it qualifies for my statement.

That's not really accurate, MoS.  actually it may be.  We were talking of the Abrahamic God and this is when He first introduced himself as God.  History may show Judaisim beginning later, it is still the same God from an earlier historic time.


Even so, its hard to reconcile the original Abrahamic God of the Judaic scriptures with the current incarnation.  We've talked before about how different the God of the OT is from the God of the NT, but the main difference between the ancient Abrahamic God and our current version of Him is His active nature in our lives.  I disagree.  His presence, whether you observe differences in Him OT to NT makes no difference what so ever in regards to Him being Him.  He is, was and ever shall be ... the Abrahamic God.

the main difference between the ancient Abrahamic God and our current version of Him is His active nature in our lives.  His activity in our lives is apparent as the fruit of our works.  His either being here or not has nothing to do with still being the same God of Abraham. For 12 or so years we've seen Tiger Woods win every golf championship he could and some, even the most important, he's won multiple times.  We saw that.  For the last two years he hasn't won (until recently) anything on the tour.  Since we didn't see Tiger win for those years after he was so visible, does that mean he 's not the same guy today ?  No, he's just not as prominent as he was, and is still the same person  just in another time.

So, yes, in so much as the God you currently worship is nothing like the one being worshipped in the early days of Judaism, it qualifies for my statement. It absolutely does not.  The statement was about the flavor of the month reference you supposed.  How in the world you can reconcile 3500 years minimum to 6000 years max as a "johnny come lately" religious definition is unbelieveable.  How many years does a religion have to be in place before you'll recognize it is as more than just a passing fancy ?  Look to the numbers of people who have and are participating in the Abrahamic God tradition currently and you'll realize the faith is growing still ...

Sorry Mano, your attempt to split the God in historic times is incorrect.  He's still the same guy, just at different times in the history of men.

3500 years of continuous Abrahamic God is still spanning the near entirety of Historic (written) man, not exactly Johnnie come lately, the original topic you formed that I have rebutted..



MoS

actually it may be.  We were talking of the Abrahamic God and this is when He first introduced himself as God.  History may show Judaisim beginning later, it is still the same God from an earlier historic time.

I was expecting this argument from STO, but not from you my Catholic friend!

So, you are telling me that Adam and Eve were real people and you now believe in the creation story as an accurate history of mankind?

If you hold to your earlier statement that you believe the creation story to be an allegory used to explain man's beginnings to a people that couldn't possible be expected to understand those beginnings scientifically...as is the basic teachings of The Church...then you can't make the statement you just made.


If the creation story isn't real, then the first actual time we can legitimately attribute anything to the Abrahamic God is in the beginnings of the Judaic Faith, or about 1500 BC.

I disagree.  His presence, whether you observe differences in Him OT to NT makes no difference what so ever in regards to Him being Him.  He is, was and ever shall be ... the Abrahamic God.

If you are a follower of the Jewish or Christian faiths, sure.

However, the argument can be made, and has been made by scholars, that they are two very different gods.

A person who isn't trapped by his faith can look at the OT and the NT and see that these two beings are so vastly different in their actions and demeanor that its almost silly to give them the same name.

You are making these statements as a man of faith, and rightly so I suppose.  But if you could seperate yourself from that faith you would see how it just isn't that cut and dried.

His either being here or not has nothing to do with still being the same God of Abraham. For 12 or so years we've seen Tiger Woods win every golf championship he could and some, even the most important, he's won multiple times.  We saw that.  For the last two years he hasn't won (until recently) anything on the tour.  Since we didn't see Tiger win for those years after he was so visible, does that mean he 's not the same guy today ?  No, he's just not as prominent as he was, and is still the same person  just in another time.

Is this kinda like your Hall of Fame athlete and biographer analogy?

I have a similar response...they aren't even close to the same thing.  Unless, of course, you are telling me that God had a major personal crisis around the time of Jesus' death (and yes, I suppose you could call his son's death a personal crisis, but He did send him to die in the first place, didn't he?) and lost some of his mental capacity to dominate and fell victim to a group of better gods rising around him who no longer feared him?

Is that what you are saying?  Because I'd love to hear more about this one!!




Seriously, though...you are assigning human emotion and entropy to the Abrahamic God.  I'm not saying it isn't possible that God became emotionally less stable and lost some of His physical ability to make contact with us, but it hardly seems consistent with the ideal set out by Christians.


Okay...this time I'm really going to be serious...I think I see where you are trying to go with this.  Its the "Just because we haven't seen him lately doesn't mean he's not here!" argument.  Sure, I suppose you are right, but its highly suspicious.

On one hand (the OT) you have a God that is extremely active in the lives of "His people", communicating directly with them often and providing tangible, physicaly signs of his existence frequently.

On the other hand (the NT) you have a God that is completely inactive in the lives of "His people", never communicating directly with them nor ever providing any kind of tangible physical signs of his existence.

Yet, you are telling me that these two Gods are the same being?  How do you figure that? 

I understand the historical reasons for why they are linked.  The early Christians were Jews, so naturally they attached their new ideal for a deity to the one they were already familiar with, but either the original Jews were way off in their description of this being, or the Christians were.

OR...they are two different beings!!  That's the one I like!!

How in the world you can reconcile 3500 years minimum to 6000 years max as a "johnny come lately" religious definition is unbelieveable.

Because that's not the timeline I am using.

I am giving your version of this god about 2000 years maximum and I think that there has been enough evolution to the character during that time that you could argue for a lesser term.

However, if all you are arguing against was my flippant use of the term "Deity of the day" or whatever I said, then I suppose I can offer an olive branch on that one.  Perhaps it isn't the proper wording for the point I was trying to make.

Christianity isn't the only ancient religion to stand the test of time, MoS, but, the Abrahamic God is truly one of the few actual deities still widely believed in (with the exception of the Hindus and their deities perhaps) so that's why I called Him the "deity of the day".  He is today's version of all the other ancient gods that came and went.  He's lasted longer...and this was my point...because of man's ability to evolve his ideals and bend the deity to his needs.  By taking an active, interfering, nasty God and slowly changing it into a distant, loving God that requires very little of his people except true belief, man has made the perfect God!

You can see the psychological development and evolution by reading the history of ancient religions and seeing the progression from the simple animal and sky gods through the soap opera Roman and Greek gods to the current monotheistic god.  As man got smarter, his God became more complex.  Its only natural.

If you hold to your earlier statement that you believe the creation story to be an allegory used to explain man's beginnings to a people that couldn't possible be expected to understand those beginnings scientifically...as is the basic teachings of The Church...then you can't make the statement you just made.  I do believe that the Adam and Eve story is allegory.  That does not mean I cannot envision them as the original people, it simply means I am far more inclined to believe it allegorical.   You jump to conclusion because I included that possible time .. I also, in two separate places in the post used only the 3500 year total ... still mystified you can call 3500 years of continuous praise of the Abrahamic God as "flavor of the month" variety of religion. see my last line: 3500 years of continuous Abrahamic God is still spanning the near entirety of Historic (written) man, not exactly Johnnie come lately, the original topic you formed that I have rebutted..

However, the argument can be made, and has been made by scholars, that they are two very different gods.  links please, and then I'll return links abrogating yours.  Just because there are some who may feel this way in no way actualizes the two as different Persona.  Sorry you don't get the difference between the two, but you're no one way in the majority here, and I believe your information to the contrary is going to be crushed under the weight in regards to numbers and quality of info provided rebutting two different Gods, one bible.

Is this kinda like your Hall of Fame athlete and biographer analogy?   Yes, actually it is.  I stick to my guns here too.  If you were to go 2000 years in the future, and for some reason the only book left on Hank Aaron was the one written by his biographer, I ask you ... did it ever happen ?  Was Hank even a real person ?  I mean we all saw his remarkable career unfold, but we're all dead. Since there's only the one source, that particular biographer is long dead and there are no eyewitnesses ... you tell me, did Hank Aaron ever exist ? 
Its the "Just because we haven't seen him lately doesn't mean he's not here!" argument.  Sure, I suppose you are right, but its highly suspicious.  Then so too is your response to the bibliographer statement so many pages back.

However, if all you are arguing against was my flippant use of the term "Deity of the day" or whatever I said, then I suppose I can offer an olive branch on that one.  Perhaps it isn't the proper wording for the point I was trying to make.... Duh !

Christianity isn't the only ancient religion to stand the test of time, then I wuld suggest the other religions who have stood the test of time alos cannot be called Diety of the Day.  I cannot even fathom how "standing the test of time" and "Deity of the Day" even correlate... it's almost like you have to make up your mind here.  MoS, but, the Abrahamic God is truly one of the few actual deities still widely believed in .. if long term commitment is involved here, how can it be known as flippant as "Flavor of the Day"  IMO you have spent a lot of time writing about and defending nothing.

because of man's ability to evolve his ideals and bend the deity to his needs.  How does this bending take place.  You have a Bible that guides most all Abrahamic God that, although debated and disputed amongst those different believing groups, the main tenets are not up for sale or change .... or bending ...to the degree you imagine.



MoS

Even so, its hard to reconcile the original Abrahamic God of the Judaic scriptures with the current incarnation.  We've talked before about how different the God of the OT is from the God of the NT, but the main difference between the ancient Abrahamic God and our current version of Him is His active nature in our lives.

How is Jesus different in the OT and the NT?

He walked with Adam in the garden, he acceted Able's offerring, He was so pleased with Enoch that he took him that Enoch should not see death, He told Noah to build an ark. He called Abram and later named him Abraham, He met with Abraham before He sent the 2 angels with Him to go and rescue Lot. He wrestled with Jacob. He was the one who spoke to Moses from the burning bush, He was Melchizedek, whom Abraham paid tithes to. Jesus is the God of the OT and NT.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.

vs. 14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

Jesus was always there.

Oh my goodness...MoS...you are taking offense to NOTHING!!

Here is what I said:

What I believe is that man has created various "gods" over his time on this planet and the current god of the day is the Abrahamic one.

Now, I can understand where you are taking offense to the idea of it being an implication of this worship of your God as being a short-lived phenomenon or a fad or something.  I already admitted that perhaps I didn't word it properly.

BUT

At no time did I ever say that the belief in your God is waning or that his "reign" has been a short one.

I did engage you in a point-counterpoint about just how long that reign really is, and I would like to continue that engagement, but not if you are going to continue to take offense to what I am writing. 


Here is the problem we are having...I do not believe in the Abrahamic God.  You do. 

According to the Bible, the God of the OT is the same as the God from the NT.  As a believer, there is no possible other explanation.  You believe He exists, therefore its elementary that they are one and the same.

I believe that this God is the figment of human imagination and, as such, I think that people have imagined two very different beings and just given them the same name for the sake of simplicity, conformity and assimilation.

When I speak of scholars that have made the argument that they are different beings, I am not talking about historians or theologians.  I am talking about sociologists and psychologists, who are making that argument on the assumption that this God is not real. 

Historically speaking, based on the writings that we have, there is little argument that the OT and the NT Gods are the same entity...at least religiously speaking.

If you take religion, or faith, out of the equation and look at it strictly from a sociological standpoint, and assuming that this God is just a figment of the human imagination, you can see where, at the very least, the NT God is a complete reinvention of the deity and how it is not a stretch to say that its a completely different entity that was merged with a previous version in order to make it easier to assimilate with the masses.

He walked with Adam in the garden

Then he kicked him out of it.

he acceted Able's offerring

And cast Cain into exile to wander the earth a marked man.

He told Noah to build an ark.

THEN HE SLAUGHTERED EVERYBODY ELSE ON THE FRICKING PLANET!!!

Jesus is the God of the OT and NT.

The Jesus was a schizophrenic!

The Jesus I read about growing up was nothing like the God of the Old Testament.  He preached tolerance and acceptance and non-violence.  God, in the OT, was spiteful, vengeful, petty, murderous and jealous.  Not once did I ever see any of these qualities in Jesus in the writings of the New Testament.

But if you say they are the same, Gidion, then I guess they are the same.