Should governments rescind the noble lie of religions?

by Greatest I am Wed Sep 26, 2012 3:59 pm

First topic message reminder :

Should Governments rescind the noble lie of religions?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDNHM84lBA0

These lies were and are given to insure social harmony in an uneducated and gullible population. Our Governments lie and allow liars to lie to us of the supernatural, fantasy and magic.

Governments learned a long ago that religions were a good tool to use for social manipulation and control. Governments allowed and encouraged belief in fantasy, miracles and magic, the opium of the masses, and have lived with the drugged up population and religions.

Governments, with this noble lie, have maintained the current idiocy of immoral teachings within religions and have caused much unjust discrimination and denigration of innocent populations of Gays, women and many others, for just doing what we now see as moral.

Do you think we have matured enough as a people that we can now rescind the laws that protect religions and gives them a tax haven and legitimacy?

Are we intelligent enough to not need these lies anymore?

Can the population take our real reality or is the Government just going to let the flim-flam con game of religions to continue to damage the mental capabilities of the citizens in our country?

Flim-flam and con artists are subject to the law of the land. --- except for religions.

Can the population of take the truth?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j2F4VcBmeo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4QXOgVfY9k&feature=player_embedded

Regards
DL

by snowyflake Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:17 pm

The one thing you tend to forget is that there has never been an uninterupted period of millions of years for the process you put forward to have occured.

The planet is 4.5 billion years old. How many mass extinctions have you been to, polyglide? Did you know that you can follow your own genetic code backwards in time and find the most likely place that you came from? They do this through population genetics and the distribution of genes in a population. And we are talking about thousands of years.

Life has been completely wiped out on several occasions that we actually know about and no doubt others that we do not.

No. Not all life was wiped out. A large percentage was wiped out but not all.

To think that after each such occasion life started from where it left off is nonsense.

No. Those animals that survived adapted to their new environment. Their genes mutated improving their chances of survival.

Everything points to instant creation after each such event involving different species etc; the remains of which we can find of some.

No. 1 + 1 + ? does not = God. 1+1+?=more research using the scientific method

by polyglide Fri Nov 02, 2012 11:01 am

Some have a whale of a time blubbering on about speculation.

The chances of anything mutating from the life forms that were left after the extinction of life as I mentioned, is beyond the numbers accepted as impossible.

Mankind can think and in fact change many things through interferance only.

Now just explain how man with all his capabilities and understanding of genetics and everything else you mention, could grow wings or learn to breath under water for prolonged periods etc; man is fully aware of the many problems he faces why has he not evolved in a manner that can deal with them and without any other assistance?

by Shirina Fri Nov 02, 2012 1:06 pm

man is fully aware of the many problems he faces why has he not evolved in a manner that can deal with them and without any other assistance?

There's that "evolution is humanity's wishing well" argument again.

by polyglide Sat Nov 03, 2012 11:59 am

Yep, one you have no answer for.

by snowyflake Sat Nov 03, 2012 1:02 pm

Yep, one you have no answer for.

It's been amply answered on dozens of occasions. Evolution is not about 'intelligence' or 'purpose'. It's about adaptation to the environment around the DNA. DNA responds and adapts by mutation. Some of these mutations are beneficial and some are not. It's called natural selection or what I like to call 'the crap-shoot of life.' Smile

Humans are very adaptable. There are genetic therapies now that can halt some diseases by injecting the missing gene or DNA sequence into a cell so that it proliferates the good cells as the old bad cells die. How amazing is that? Soon, we hope to transplant organs built from the stem cells of a patient so that anti-rejection medication will be a thing of the past. A new healthy organ to replace a defective one.

As I said, we are very adaptable. Smile

by Shirina Sat Nov 03, 2012 2:54 pm

Yep, one you have no answer for.

I've addressed this point before, which is why I said there is this argument "again."

Snowy pretty much explained the reason in a nutshell. Oftentimes, genetic traits are tradeoffs. Sure, evolution could have given humans wings, but then we'd have hollow bones and our brain size would be curtailed due to its excessive weight. We'd have to trade some of our intelligence for the ability to fly, and that would not have been an evolutionary advantage.

Of course, I could turn the question around and ask why God decided to create us without wings if you think it would have been to our advantage. Why didn't God give us all of these superpowers you think evolution should have given us?

by Jsmythe Sun Nov 18, 2012 12:52 am

Evolution is not about 'intelligence' or 'purpose'. It's about adaptation to the environment around the DNA. DNA responds and adapts by mutation. Some of these mutations are beneficial and some are not. It's called natural selection or what I like to call 'the crap-shoot of life.' Smile

Hello Snowy,

A sound argument there;my question then; Wouldn't the idea of adaptation and natural selection be a purpose itself,to make life exist? considering that natural selection has something there in the first place to select.

by Tosh Sun Nov 18, 2012 9:07 am

A sound argument there;my question then; Wouldn't the idea of adaptation and natural selection be a purpose itself,to make life exist? considering that natural selection has something there in the first place to select. .

You are attaching purposeful intention to environmental pressures such as climate change or meteors crashing into earth, and you are attaching purposeful foresight to random genetic mutations such as downs syndrome, sterility etc.

Before you get all warm inside from the fires of theistic evolution, let me remind you that 95% of all species that have ever existed are extinct, natural selection is in the killing business, and the few survivors of this genetic lottery should not look back in hindight and imagine foresight.

Adapt or die is the design of a sadist, one who was not prepared to allow life to evolve by genetic drift, it had to create deadly pressures to spice up the process.

There is one simple fact, humans would not have evolved without the extinction of the dinosaurs, this suggests the purpose of life had nothing to do with us or the dinosaurs, unless one believes the designer miscalculated and had to crash a giant meteor into earth 65 million years ago to correct its error.

Maybe God is poor at maths.

by Tosh Sun Nov 18, 2012 9:36 am

Life in its most fundamental form is as mindless as fire, it reproduces by absorbing and expending energy, remove its source of energy and it becomes lifeless, the fire goes out.

Life is a reaction, its only our evolved awareness of this that demands purpose be attached to this process, logically these minds should worship the sun.We, our planet and its contents are energy reactors, we are made in the image of the sun and it breathes life into existence.

Post cognisant humans have an ego that demands everything be intended, and the intentions must involve our egos. Our narcissism imagines the purpose of a universe containing billions of suns, planets and species, MUST BE one planet, one sun and one species.....glorified monkeys.

Life is what you make of it, we can make life special without resorting to primitive superstitions, I do not need a mythical being to tell me life is sacred, my awareness of my existence kinda worked this out for itself, theology is simply a mirror of human expectation.

Accept your mindless origins, discard hubris and embrace humility.

by polyglide Mon Nov 19, 2012 2:39 pm

You sure are good at monkeying around Tosh.

All creatures behave in the manner God intended, including man, the only difference being as anyone with the least bit of common sense would acknowledge is that man was given the power of choice in his actions and decision making, your comments, completely unfounded, prove just how mixed up in a load of scientific jargon you are.

Of course life for man is what he makes it and the same cannot be said for any other living thing, they do exactly what they were intended to do.

by Tosh Mon Nov 19, 2012 3:07 pm

You sure are good at monkeying around Tosh.

Better than you, you are just too obvious, is that school out ?

by polyglide Tue Nov 20, 2012 2:29 pm

I do not know which school you attended, if any, but it obviosly did you no good.

by Tosh Tue Nov 20, 2012 3:33 pm

* pity reply "

Get help.

by polyglide Fri Nov 23, 2012 12:19 pm

There is only one definition of a Christian and that is one who believes in Jesus.

Religion has been compromised on so many levels as to make it a laughing stock and that is exactly what the Devil set out to do and he is being well assisted by the gullible who are unable to understand just what is happening at the present time.

Just consider, after the 6,000 years or so that present day man has been around and the chances he has had of making life a pleasant and enjoyable experience, just what he has done with that chance.

You cannot blame anyone else but man.

by Tosh Fri Nov 23, 2012 5:02 pm

Just consider, after the 6,000 years or so that present day man has been around

Did the devil plant all the human fossils that are over 6000 years old ?

by Shirina Fri Nov 23, 2012 7:14 pm

Just consider, after the 6,000 years or so that present day man has been around and the chances he has had of making life a pleasant and enjoyable experience, just what he has done with that chance.

I would say Man has done quite a bit with that chance. I don't know about you, but I live in a cozy apartment with food and water a mere arm's reach away. I can merely flip a switch to receive light and warmth ... or even cooling in the summer. I can travel anywhere in the world in a day. Even though I have a painful medical condition, I have medicine to keep it in check and doctors examining my blood to figure out the problem. I have a computer to talk to you and millions of others all over the world at literally the speed of light. I get to choose my leaders (and I just did a few weeks ago), taxation is not excessive, and though I do not have a lot of money, I do not live in squalor. There's a very good likelihood that I'll live to be 80 and beyond. I am free from war, plagues, marauding gangs, and, even though I'm female, I have the same rights as men. I can read, write, and was able to receive a good education which allows me to live without fear of superstition and "mysterious" supernatural forces. My labors serve to better my life and my community with time left over to pursue pleasure. I am always clean with clean clothes every day and know enough about personal hygiene to keep most diseases and infections at bay. My eyesight is bad, so bad in fact that in another time I would be blind, but I have lenses that I can stick right to my eye that allows me to see as clearly as if my eyes were brand new.

But what was it like before? Do you really think you would have been better off living as a peasant in medieval Europe? A laborer in ancient Egypt? A soldier in the Roman army? A slave in 16th Century America? The irony is that only someone with the luxuries and comfort of modern life would even have the time and knowledge to sit around moping over how bad the world is.

by polyglide Sat Nov 24, 2012 11:25 am

Yes, Shirina and there are millions of people including in your country starving and in other countries dying from any manner of problems that could be avoided in the first place and cured in the second, if people like you were not so self satisfied and happy with there lot and did not give a second thought to others.

by Tosh Sat Nov 24, 2012 12:24 pm

Yes, Shirina if people like you were not so self satisfied and happy with there lot and did not give a second thought to others.

As wind ups go this one is a tad obvious, try and be a bit more subtle.

.

by Shirina Sat Nov 24, 2012 1:24 pm

Yes, Shirina and there are millions of people including in your country starving

No one in this country is "starving."

and in other countries dying from any manner of problems that could be avoided in the first place and cured in the second

Sure there are. But in the past, just about *everyone* was dying from any manner of problems rather than just those in certain geographical areas.

if people like you were not so self satisfied and happy with there lot and did not give a second thought to others.

Sure, polyglide, just gimme a second so that I can whip out my magic wand and cure all the world's ills. Do you expect me to abandon modern life and live as the poorest do? Should I consign myself to misery because others may be miserable? And how would doing so help anyone at all?

Perhaps the most pertinent question is: What are *you* doing to help others aside from proselytizing on this board? Perhaps you can run along and do some missionary work instead. I cannot ... you see, I have this health problem ...

by Tosh Sat Nov 24, 2012 2:16 pm

Perhaps the most pertinent question is: What are *you* doing to help others aside from proselytizing on this board?

I would imagine he/she is still at school, remedial school.

by Tosh Sat Nov 24, 2012 2:38 pm

polyglide,

What about all the human fossils over 6000 years old ?

Who planted them and why ?

Is it something to do with Illuminatti lizards or dare I say, butterflies ?

by polyglide Mon Nov 26, 2012 2:39 pm

Firstly I run activities for the disabled every week, I contribute both to a cancer project and to a hospice every month and if everyone did the same in different areas there woulod be no problems.

It is pure selfishness that is the cause of most of the worlds troubles, the I am alright Jack attitude does not help.

by polyglide Mon Nov 26, 2012 2:45 pm

There are numerous bones of all discriptions found in many different areas and from very different ages but none have been identified as having anything to do with modern man.

Just look under proof of creation and you will see every theory put forward has been discredited.

That is if you actually understand all the different stages of science you are so fond of quoting.

by Tosh Mon Nov 26, 2012 4:03 pm

There are numerous bones of all discriptions found in many different areas and from very different ages but none have been identified as having anything to do with modern man. Just look under proof of creation and you will see every theory put forward has been discredited. That is if you actually understand all the different stages of science you are so fond of quoting.

Proof of creation is not a science website, it is a religious website, unfortunately for you evolution is a scientific theory and it does identify transitional fossils from modern humans back to primates.

I require scientific objections not religious objections to a scientific theory.

Try again.

by Tosh Mon Nov 26, 2012 5:09 pm

I got this from your proof of creation website:

Geocentricity has proof; sun revolves around earth
Geocentricity survives the proofs of real science and math; hundreds of years of illusions have been knocked down

This is simply insane, and you are retarded if you believe the Sun revolves around the earth.

by Shirina Mon Nov 26, 2012 5:12 pm

Just look under proof of creation and you will see every theory put forward has been discredited.

Just because some idiot Creationist managed to come up with a harebrained "alternative" theory doesn't mean the real science has been discredited.

by Tosh Mon Nov 26, 2012 6:19 pm

Firstly I run activities for the disabled every week,

Is the clown suit optional ?

by polyglide Tue Nov 27, 2012 2:25 pm

I am beginning to wonder about evolution.

If there is anything that looks more like, or with the intelligence of an ape
than Tosh. then heaven help us.

by polyglide Tue Nov 27, 2012 2:29 pm

It is very funny, all those who prove evolution is nonsense are Christians accordinmg to you, Shirina, but you will find many scientists amongst them.

In my opinion, all those who believe in evolution need brain a transplant.

by Tosh Tue Nov 27, 2012 6:07 pm

In my opinion, all those who believe in evolution need brain a transplant. .

You cannot support your opinion with any scientific objections.

Where are they, I am waiting.

by Shirina Tue Nov 27, 2012 6:12 pm

It is very funny, all those who prove evolution is nonsense are Christians accordinmg to you, Shirina, but you will find many scientists amongst them.

Christian scientists are heavily biased toward their religion. Therefore, their "science" is always suspect. They already "know" the answer to the Big Questions because their religion provided them. Thus they start with the conclusion and desperately look for evidence to prove it true. That's NOT how one conducts scientific investigations.

I think the statistics bear that out. I have said this before, but it's an important bit of knowledge. Outside of America, the number of scientists who believe in Creationism is less than one-tenth of one percent. In America, however, the number of Creationist scientists is around 4.99%. Now, American scientists are not privy to information the rest of the world does not have, so why are there so many more American Creationist scientists than anywhere else in the world?

Oh, gee whiz, could it be because of cultural bias? After all, America is ridiculously religious and superstitious compared to the rest of the industrialized world. In addition, there is always an active push by the religious right to disprove evolution - but it's more than an academic exercise. The zealots in this country also want to attach a label to those who disbelieve in Creationism. You know, the whole "atheists are immoral" and "atheists aren't to be trusted" arguments that fundamental and evangelical religion says every single day. When faced with the possibility of societal exile for not believing in superstition, SOME scientists are likely to conform.

If their beliefs were based on any sort of truth or evidence, then the number of Creationist scientists would be far more equally distributed around the globe. But it's not. This utterly smashes your argument about Creationist scientists having any sort of "leg up" on the real scientists.

by polyglide Fri Nov 30, 2012 12:04 pm

Iam not going to go all through the rigmarole again, all evolutionist scientists are just as biased as any other.

As I have said every evolutioninst's theory has been both disputed and discredited on firmer grounds than the evolutionists grounds.

by Tosh Sat Dec 01, 2012 2:25 pm

Iam not going to go all through the rigmarole again, all evolutionist scientists are just as biased as any other.

Neither the scientific method not the evidence can be biased, you are simply not qualified to comment on scientists or science.

As I have said every evolutioninst's theory has been both disputed and discredited on firmer grounds than the evolutionists grounds.

Still waiting on the evidence to support your unqualified opinion, anytime soon will be fine.

Look you complete cretin, do you not get it, your opinion on scientific conclusions is freakin worthless, how thick can a person be ?

by snowyflake Sat Dec 01, 2012 8:06 pm

1. Slusher, Harold S., The Origin of the Universe, San Diego: Institute for Creation Research (ICR), 1978.

The above is referenced on the Scientific Evidence for Creation website

This is what talk origins says about Harold S. Slusher:

Harold S. Slusher, formerly of the Institute for Creation Research, is best known for his critiques of radiometric dating techniques. He is also known for the rather bizarre suggestion that the universe is much smaller than it appears, because its geometry is Riemannian as opposed to Euclidean.

Slusher claims to hold an honorary D.Sc. from Indiana Christian University and a Ph.D. in geophysics from Columbia Pacific University. Robert Schadewald discovered that Indiana Christian University is a Bible College with only a 1/2 man graduate science department. As for Columbia Pacific, it "exhibits several qualities of a degree mill" [3]. Ronald Numbers describes CPU as an unaccredited correspondence school that recruited students with the lure of a degree "in less than a year." Slusher's dissertation consisted of a manila folder containing copies of five memographed ICR "technical monographs" and a copy of the ICR graduate school catalog, all held together with a rubber band. The supervising professor was his creationist colleague from El Paso and the ICR, [Thomas] Barnes, who himself possessed only an honorary doctorate. [2]

According to Bears' Guide [1], Columbia Pacific was denied its application for state license renewal in early 1996 for undisclosed reasons. The university appealed the decision in late 1996, but the appeal had not been acted upon by the time Bears' Guide went to press.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html

This person is no more a scientist than Ronald McDonald. A scientist follows the scientific method in proposing an hypothesis, designing a test, gathering evidence and analysing data. Creation "scientists" and their whacky websites do none of this.

And polyglide, try not to believe everything you read. Part of an educated mind is to critically evaluate what you read. Ask yourself is it likely to be true? Where are the sources and are they credible and are the authors credible, peer reviewed and as unbiased as possible?

by Guest Tue Dec 04, 2012 9:07 am

Snowy,

I had forgotten his name, but I’ve been familiar with his viewpoints for several decades. It is possible for one to doubt macro-evolution independent of one’s acceptance or non-acceptance of creation. Misunderstanding this fact, in my opinion, has been the “fatal flaw” of macro-evolution’s proponents both on and outside this forum.

My doubt was neither initially caused nor ultimately fueled by creationist ideology. Perhaps the universe is 13.7 billion years old, perhaps not; I remain puzzled by the determination that a universe that emanates from a singularity, one point, is 154 billion light years across and 13.7 billion years old simultaneously, and I remain unconvinced by the explanations from premier astro-physicists as to how this can be. Perhaps one day this apparent impossibility will become clear, perhaps not. Meanwhile, the absolute speed limit as posited by Brother Al remains unchallenged, and Brother Al’s predictions as to what should be found and where it should be found continue to prove true. So there you go; data often leads to unfathomed apparent contradictions.

This lesson applies to the study of bones in dated dirt. Perhaps the earth is 4.6 billion years old, perhaps not. Perhaps dirt-dating methodology is reasonably accurate; perhaps not. We do know that there are bones found in the dirt, we do know that the dirt in which the bones have been found has been dated, however accurately or inaccurately, and we do know that the bones indicate appearance and disappearance of a whole boatload of species. None of these things that we know (there are a few more) prove macro-evolution. This lack of proof has nothing whatsoever to do with either creationist ideology o macro-evolution ideology; to assume so assumes that if one is wrong the other is right, and if one is right the other is wrong. Could be both are wrong; could be both are right. None of us possesses audio/video proof of either.

Relinquishment of ideologies and their inviolate tenets is long overdue. Such dogged loyalty to unproven ideology stands in the way of science. The astronomer who “brung home the bacon” verifying Brother Al’s prediction of the sun’s gravity bending light was drummed out of the joint by the Royal Academy of Muckitie-Mucks because his measurements didn’t agree with Sir Ike. Uh huh.

Wonder how they covered their backsides when the same astronomer came back with new measurements produced by instruments whose margins of error were so tiny that the numbers couldn’t be argued away? Perhaps Sir Ike turned over in his grave, but I suspect the great scientist welcomed the advance and was overjoyed that someone finally explained how gravity works.

by polyglide Tue Dec 04, 2012 2:11 pm

You can continue to put forward theory after theory but that is exactly what they are theories.

No one knows how old the universe is, nor it's extent, nor does anyone know the history of the earth from the biginning, because we do not know the beginning.

36 million years is the last I heard put forward but it might just as well be 76 million.

As I have said previously, I believe God created the earth as we know it and I believe it had been used for other purposes prior to God's creation.

Gravity and all other matters that are relative to the life of the earth must have an explanation because nothing comes about by chance.

What is missing that would solve all the problems, is man's opinion that there is nothing geater than man and no power that he cannot explain, when in fact man is a very insignificant part of the universe and there must be intelligence far beyond the understandung of mankind

by Tosh Tue Dec 04, 2012 8:28 pm

You can continue to put forward theory after theory but that is exactly what they are theories.

Its not me dear, its all science's fault, they keep finding all the evidence to support their theories, how is your hypothesis doing, any evidence yet ?

by snowyflake Tue Dec 04, 2012 8:29 pm

Hi Rock

Of course, we don't know absolutely about some things but we can draw reasonable conclusions based on the evidence. And if given the choice between this rock is 2.5 billion years old because the element in it has decayed over time that we can calculate the age of the rock to within a few million years then I would take that over 'in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth'. One has evidence, the other is an unfounded statement.

by Tosh Tue Dec 04, 2012 8:37 pm

I remain puzzled by the determination that a universe that emanates from a singularity, one point, is 154 billion light years across and 13.7 billion years old simultaneously, and I remain unconvinced by the explanations from premier astro-physicists as to how this can be.

I really don't think the world's premier astro-physicists really care if the milkman is puzzled and unconvinved by their calculations and explanations.

Why do non-scientists think they are equipped to dismiss scientific theories that qualified scientists accept ?

Is it a mental disorder ?

by Guest Wed Dec 05, 2012 9:48 am

snowyflake wrote:
Hi Rock

Of course, we don't know absolutely about some things but we can draw reasonable conclusions based on the evidence. And if given the choice between this rock is 2.5 billion years old because the element in it has decayed over time that we can calculate the age of the rock to within a few million years then I would take that over 'in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth'. One has evidence, the other is an unfounded statement.

Hey Snowy, que pasa?

There is no dichotomy between the rock dated to within a few million years and Genesis 1:1.

First, neither you nor I know for certain that the methodology is as accurate, les accurate, or more accurate than we have concluded. Perhaps we are several billion years off, perhaps we are accurate to within a few million years as you suggest, or perhaps we are accurate to within a few millennia, centuries, or even years. With that type of uncertainty, it’s best to refrain from absolute “loyalty” to a specific degree of accuracy, Insofar as I’m concerned, since the figures are as accurate as current technology allows, I’ll go with them until such time as technology provides something better.

Second, b’r’shythe, paralleling the singularity, possesses neither pre-event time nor pre-event place; in fact, space-time begins at b’r’shythe, the singularity.

Hebrew Bible

The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. Then God said, “Let there be light” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light day and the darkness night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.¹

Then God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so. God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.¹

Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters he called seas, and God saw that it was good. Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”, and it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind, and God saw that it was good. There was evening and there was morning, a third day.¹

Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day¹ from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days¹ and years; and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”, and it was so. God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day,¹ and the lesser light to govern the night; he made the stars also. God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to govern the day¹ and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.¹

Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.” God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good. God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.¹

Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”, and it was so. God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind, and God saw that it was good.

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him, male and female created he them. God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you. And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the [ap]sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food”, and it was so. God saw all that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.¹

Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. By the seventh day¹ God completed his work which he had done, and He rested on the seventh day¹ from all his work which he had done. Then God blessed the seventh day¹ and sanctified it, because in it he rested from all his work which God had created and made. This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day¹ that the Lord God made earth and heaven.

Genesis 1:2-31, 2:1-4

יוֹם,‎ yôm, (yome), a day (as the warm hours), whether literally (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), age, always, chronicles, continually, continuance, daily, each day, today, nowadays, two days, days agone, elder, evening, forever, everlasting, forevermore, full, life, as long as, so long as, now, even now, old, outlived, perpetually, presently, remains, required, season, since, space, then, process of time, as at other times, when, as when, awhile, the while, within a while, full, full year, yearly, whole, whole age.

Third, proceeding through Genesis 1:2 to Genesis 2:4, the word “day” is found multiple times in reference to “when” things occurred. See the referenced quote above, and then you tell me how long “day” might be. As for me, I “don’t touch that”, because I’ve concluded that the Hebrew word “yôm” provides no clue to the duration of “day”, or even if one “day” is of the same duration as another “day.”

A Dream Deferred
Langston Hughes

What happens to a dream deferred?

Does it dry up like a raisin in the sun?
Or fester like a sore
And then run?
Does it stink like rotten meat?
Or crust and sugar over
like a syrupy sweet?

Maybe it just sags
like a heavy load.
Or does it explode?

Third and a half, seven signifies complete in Hebrew culture. Genesis 1 is poetry. Genesis 1 is true; A Dream Deferred is true. When Western minds try to dissect Genesis 1:2 and following in the same manner that Western minds dissect masters theses, Western minds miss the reality/truth conveyed by the poetry.

Invictus
William Ernest Henley

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll.
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

A fellow whose PhD is/was in English literature criticism or some such nonsense published a book in which he characterized Invictus as poor writing because (as direct a quote as I can remember) “We don’t know where this night, this pit, or these poles might be.”

Uh Huh! I know exactly where the night, the pit, and the poles might be; I met them in all 1967-1969. If you wish details on this two year event, let me know via pm or email, and I’ll email you a detailed explanation.

More importantly to world history, the man who, through strength of character, prevented the inevitable bloodbath in South Africa knows intimately the identities and locations of the night, the pit, and the poles. He posted a copy of Invictus on his cell wall on Robbins Island.

Westerners would do well to take on the mentality of William Ernest Henley and Nelson Mandela when assessing Genesis 1:2 and following. If we did so, perhaps we would understand the significance of the seventh day and the significance of gender inclusive man’s creation on the sixth day. These significances are in the poetry.

Fourth, back to Genesis 1:1, the “who-what-when-where” is identical to Big Bang; in fact, as Genesis 1:1 speaks not at all of “how”. Big Bang’s huge data set regarding “how” serves as an awesome adjunct to Genesis 1:1. As I said, no dichotomy there; conversely, the perfect harmony therein is to me of abiding fascination and interest.

Just a few thoughts. I’ll await your pm or email if you wish to know where I found the night, the pit, and the poles.

by Shirina Wed Dec 05, 2012 11:40 am

Hebrew Bible

Strange how God waited until the fourth day to actually create the sun even though the plants and the terms "day" and "night" were created before the sun. Considering plants require sunlight to live, well ... hmm ...

Though I suppose if people in the Bronze Age had no conception of photosynthesis, I could see how they might screw that up.

Also, the Bible doesn't mention how the earth was warmed for four "days" (however long they were) without a nearby star. A frozen planet isn't very conducive to liquid water or plant life.

by Sponsored content