interesting, but G-d made all sorts of stuff, so why just hair?
Question, why do you "censor" the word God?
very good question...i really don't know why, i just feel more comfortable doing so...kind of like what dacicus said, but i'm not so sure it applies in english...and it DEFINATELY doesn't apply on a computer screen...still it makes me feel more comfortable
The days are numbered, but they don't begin with "first day" (implying there are further days) - they begin with "day one" meaning that the first creation narrative is attempting to look FORWARD from God's view, NOT backward from man's.
this is what i meant earlier about nuances in the translation...the phrase can translate as "the first day" or as "the first period of time" or 'day one" or "period of time one"
btw it is possible for a 5 year old to accept Jesus in their heart.
..yet there is no biblical or other traditional basis for any such thing as "accept jesus into heart" or whatever you're talking about, and there is also no tradition of children so young making such decisions (ie, child baptism).
JXQ wrote:
DeFender1031 wrote:
interesting, but G-d made all sorts of stuff, so why just hair?
But when you're looking for the intended meaning you should probably look as close to the writer as possible, for example at commentaries written within a few generations when the culture wouldn't've changed significantly since.
There have been significant changes in our cultures within the last century, even the last few decades, so why can such changes not have occurred in the past? Furthermore, how do you know that the intentions of the commentary writer(s) were to interpret the document as the author intended?
Whether or not those interpretations are correct, they have a significant chance of being closer considering the writers of those commentaries would be members of the same oral tradition, etc, as the author. As opposed to some English speaker from the 17th or 18th century working from KJV with no knowledge of the historical context and getting stuff wrong all over. You know.
Dacicus wrote:
Boco wrote:
If we are to take it as six literal days, why did Moses himself differentiate them?
How does that example show differentiation?
He breaks the calendar into two parts, the "days" and the "generations". Midrash says we are to interpret "days" as the six days of creation and "generations" as years from Adam, two separate calendars.
Dacicus wrote:
Boco wrote:
Commentary from 1500+ years ago differentiates them and lcaims the creation narratives are parable.
Can you give examples? This page gives examples of scholars who interpreted them literally.
Use in contemporary works (including other scripture), Midrash & Talmud, later writers of Kaballah, etc.
Dacicus wrote:
Boco wrote:
The days are numbered, but they don't begin with "first day" (implying there are further days) - they begin with "day one" meaning that the first creation narrative is attempting to look FORWARD from God's view, NOT backward from man's.
How does this affect how long they are?
It just means we can't expect current definitions to hold. After all, how can one have a literal 24-hour day, four days before the sun?
EDIT: Also there's the whole thing about there being two creation narratives which disagree on details as a reason not to take it literally rather than as a multilayered poem describing how God went about his work.
someone is out there who will like you. take off your mask so they can find you faster.
I support the new Nekketsu Kouha Kunio-kun.
If we are to take it as six literal days, why did Moses himself differentiate them?
How does that example show differentiation?
He breaks the calendar into two parts, the "days" and the "generations". Midrash says we are to interpret "days" as the six days of creation and "generations" as years from Adam, two separate calendars.
If i recall correctly, i believe it was Maimonidies who said "woe is the fool who takes all midrash literally"
Boco wrote:
Dacicus wrote:
Boco wrote:
The days are numbered, but they don't begin with "first day" (implying there are further days) - they begin with "day one" meaning that the first creation narrative is attempting to look FORWARD from God's view, NOT backward from man's.
How does this affect how long they are?
It just means we can't expect current definitions to hold. After all, how can one have a literal 24-hour day, four days before the sun?
day and night (or at least light and dark) were created in the first stage of creation (be it day or period of time). I personally interpret this to mean that all the constants of physics were set down at this point, a basis upon which the universe can exist. I'm not arguing for the idea that it was literal days, I'm just being fair by saying that this isn't necissarily a proof.
Like Fabian said earlier, I think we would be well off to drop evolution from this discussion. If anyone is still interested in knowing more about the issue, and forming your own opinion, these are probably the two biggest sites dealing with it:
Pro-creation: Answers in Genesis
Pro-evolution: Talk.origins (notably their FAQ area)
I also think it should be noted that there is literally no disagreement in the scientific community about Evolution being correct.
Newsweek magazine, 1987-JUN-29, Page 23 wrote:
By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science...
This obviously doesn't transfer into the general population, where many people, even the majority by some counts, are still skeptical of evolution. (I used to be one of them.)
Wikipedia links (neutral, all of them interesting reads):
EvolutionCreationismCreation-evolution controversyEvidence of evolution (previously linked)
For what it's worth, we seem to have left the original discussion and started arguing whether or not god exists, and other similar topics. I guess you can discuss whatever you want, including evolution, from here on out.
Edit: The creation-evolution controversy link Truncated posted was a very good read (as I'm sure the other links were to, this was the only one I checked out).
Like Fabian said earlier, I think we would be well off to drop evolution from this discussion. If anyone is still interested in knowing more about the issue, and forming your own opinion, these are probably the two biggest sites dealing with it:
Pro-creation: Answers in Genesis
Pro-evolution: Talk.origins (notably their FAQ area)
I have a problem with this terminology. As i explained before, it is possible to be pro-both.
moozooh wrote:
DeFender1031 wrote:
who says "groovy" anymore?
Earthworm Jim.
Earthworm Jim! He's such a groovy guy!
Earthworm Jim! He rockets through the sky!
i think you missed the point of my last post...
Bob A wrote:
Joined: 3/11/2004
Posts: 1058
Location: Reykjavík, Ísland
Of course, nothing will ever disprove creation. After all, it isn't a scientific theory, so it cannot even theoretically be disproven.
But the whole point of evolution is that there is no creator. How is it possible to accept the fact that life has no creator, while simoltaneously (sp?) accepting the postulation that life actually does have a creator? It just doesn't add up. You'd have to radically re-interpret the bible right from the beginning until the end, until the interpretation is so different from what is actually written there, you might as well do away the whole thing.
That's not faith at all. Faith is a process of non-thinking whereby one accepts beliefs passed down through tradition with no evidence, or even against the evidence.
I disagree. Faith is based on some kind of logic. The axioms of the various kinds of logic used to justify various faiths may differe significantly and may be a matter of debate, but every faith about which I know is based on logic.
I've always understood faith to mean a belief in something not requiring evidence. This "logic" you speak of would seem to be a sort of evidence. If the casual believer was to tell me his beliefs are justified due to "faith" in the way I described it, I would tell him that is not a good epistemic system for developing beliefs. If he told me he was a theist philosopher, and believes in God for good reason, I would ask him what those reasons are and dismiss them one by one.
The only philosophical conversation I would enjoy with a theist would be one where he admits he is a theist for no rational reason, but rather merely due to upbringing or some kind of genetic predisposition. Then the conversation would merely become a game where we presume certain axioms about his faith, and then try to discuss and discover more about it. This conversation would merely be to understand him and his faith better, but not to discover truths about the real world.
Of course, nothing will ever disprove creation. After all, it isn't a scientific theory, so it cannot even theoretically be disproven.
But the whole point of evolution is that there is no creator. How is it possible to accept the fact that life has no creator, while simoltaneously (sp?) accepting the postulation that life actually does have a creator? It just doesn't add up. You'd have to radically re-interpret the bible right from the beginning until the end, until the interpretation is so different from what is actually written there, you might as well do away the whole thing.
the whole point of evolution has nothing to do with whether there is a creator or not. The point is that life evolves over time (hence the name). I am simultaneously believing nothing contradictory. If G-d guided the course of evolution, and you believe that the story of creation happened not over 7 days, but over 7 longer periods of time, (different "stages" of creation rather than "days") and you believe that eden is a metaphysical rather than physical place, and that man was put into it's physical form only AFTER the sin of the fruit, i don't see any contradiction. In fact, it explains a discrepancy created by the theory of evolution. The issue is that the geological age of the eath (by carbon dating) is far older than the age of the galaxy (based upon its rate of expansion). Here is how I see it step by step:
Beginning:
there is nothing. A nothingness beyond comprehention so don't even try.
Stage 1:
G-d creates light and dark, and along with it all of the physical constants of the universe. He also creates the earth at this point, but doesn't place it in the universe yet.
Stage 2:
G-d separates heaven from earth, meaning he separates the metaphysical realms (eden, hell, etc.) from the physical one (the universe that we know).
Stage 3:
G-d separates the seas from the land, and creates single-celled organisms, which, over the course of this stage, evolve into non-photosynthetic plants.
Stage 4:
G-d creates the sun and moon and stars, (this is the point of the big bang, or what ever other theory there is as to the beginnings of the universe) and places the earth within the universe. This explains why the geological age of the earth is greater than the age of the galaxy, the earth existed first.
Stage 5:
Now that there is a sun, life can truly begin to evolve. Ths stage brings flying creatures and the creatures of the sea, and the crawling creatures of the land. I see this as the age of the dinosaurs.
Stage 6:
the beginning of this stage is when the dinos evolved into the crude forms of the animals we know today. Livestock and land animals etc. Now is where it gets complicated. The bible is not a story book and does not always go in order. I believe that during all of this, the creation of man and the whole second chapter of genesis was going on in the metaphysical eden, and that this is the point where the sin of the fruit is commited. This is supported by the fact that it says that man was made in the image of G-d. G-d is not physical, so how could physical beings be in His image? The answer is that man was originally not physical. Anyway, G-d puts the souls of adam and eve into the first two homosapiens, which had evolved naturally, and then the world was more or less as we know it.
Stage 7:
G-d rests.
Joined: 3/11/2004
Posts: 1058
Location: Reykjavík, Ísland
I understand what you're saying, but what I meant was the whole thing just sounds like "if I take this old book, change it into something completely different, add a few footnotes and interpret it in a special way, then it fits perfectly!". If you want to acknowledge science, it kinda seems to weaken the validity of the story of creation, don't you think? That's the way I see it.
(Also, the theory of evolution makes a point that it is not guided by anything. I suppose you can just ignore that, though.)
I understand what you're saying, but what I meant was the whole thing just sounds like "if I take this old book, change it into something completely different, add a few footnotes and interpret it in a special way, then it fits perfectly!". It kinda weakens the validity of the story of creation, don't you think?
Also, the theory of evolution makes a point that it is not guided by anything. I suppose you can just ignore that, though.
i'm not changing it at all, nothing i just posted goes against the text in the bible. and adding "footnotes" as you call them is nessecary in quite a few places in the bible...why do you think there are so many commentaries on it? the bible is very short and to the point, and there is even a tradition that there are no more letters in the bible than are absolutely nessecary, it is quite common to see a question in the talmud about how the bible could have said something shorter in a specific verse, and it always ends up teaching a new point. so, yes. The bible DOES need a lot of added explanation.
But the whole point of evolution is that there is no creator.
Um, WHAT?
Evolution only says that life changes in some random ways, and that those random changes which are beneficial are maintained, with the result that life adapts to fit its environment. It doesn't say ANYTHING about the origin of that life or about anything other than that.
someone is out there who will like you. take off your mask so they can find you faster.
I support the new Nekketsu Kouha Kunio-kun.
Joined: 3/11/2004
Posts: 1058
Location: Reykjavík, Ísland
Okay, sorry. Maybe I wasn't being clear enough. I meant that there is no intelligent force that directs evolution in any specific direction. There is only blind natural selection and nothing more. The theory of evolution doesn't cover the origin of life, so I guess you could still argue that god did that (even though it answers nothing).
Okay, sorry. Maybe I wasn't being clear enough. I meant that there is no intelligent force that directs evolution in any specific direction. There is only blind natural selection and nothing more. The theory of evolution doesn't cover the origin of life, so I guess you could still argue that god did that (even though it answers nothing).
Since when is G-d not powerful enough to be guiding evolution?
Joined: 3/11/2004
Posts: 1058
Location: Reykjavík, Ísland
Sheeis. Okay. According to the theory of evolution by natural selection, there is no intelligent guide. If you postulate an intelligent guide, it is not the theory of evolution by natural selection anymore. But like I said, you can ignore this. Or you could call it a "variation", or whatever. It doesn't matter what it's called, what you believe is what you believe and I think it would be pointless to discuss this any further.
Okay, time to move on.
Sheeis. According to the theory of evolution by natural selection, there is no intelligent guide. If you postulate an intelligent guide, it is not the theory of evolution by natural selection anymore. But like I said, you can ignore this.
fine, G-d created the process of evolution from the beginning and it takes its natural course (except of course where G-d chooses to alter it, same as with any physical constant)
Sheeis. According to the theory of evolution by natural selection, there is no intelligent guide. If you postulate an intelligent guide, it is not the theory of evolution by natural selection anymore. But like I said, you can ignore this.
fine, G-d created the process of evolution from the beginning and it takes its natural course (except of course where G-d chooses to alter it, same as with any physical constant)
