Genesis Creation

[thomas t]

Those are not unsubstantiated allegations. They are observations.. Please note, you do not wish to learn, you apparently only want to preach. You should have asked me how I know Peter was not the author. If you go to sources written by actual scholars and not apologists you will find out why Peter is not thought to be the author of II Peter. Why not check out this source:

Authorship of the Petrine epistles | Project Gutenberg Self-Publishing - eBooks | Read eBooks online

When I do not provide a link in my posts it is usually because I am making a claim that needs no support if one has studied the topic being discussed. That does not mean that I cannot find a source. Ask politely and I will always support my claims.

look, did I tell you alredy that I don't debate with you? Actually I don't.

and here is why: usually you don't back up anything you say - be it for those people who didn't study or for those who did.
I highlighted empty claims from this current post in red color, go ahead and reread your post with the highlighted passages.

So now you come up with the idea that I could ask for substanciation.
Well, if I engage with someone on a discussion here on RF, I expect them to back their points up without me asking. Especially in cases when people resort to claims about me as a person such as "you don't want to learn" (see above in your post). These, of course, need instant backing from the poster who came up with such a claim. Otherwise I dismiss it by default.

EDITED to add last paragraph.

 

[Subduction Zone]

look, did I tell you alredy that I don't debate with you? Actually I don't.

and here is why: usually you don't back up anything you say - be it for those people who didn't study or for those who did.
I highlighted empty claims from this current post in red color, go ahead and reread your post with the highlighted passages.

So now you come up with the idea that I could ask for substanciation.
Well, if I engage with someone on a discussion here on RF, I expect them to back their points up without me asking. Especially in cases when people resort to claims about me as a person such as "you don't want to learn" (see above in your post). These, of course, need instant backing from the poster who came up with such a claim. Otherwise I dismiss it by default.

EDITED to add last paragraph.

LOL! An observation is never an "empty claim". It is based upon your post that I quoted. By the way, I supported my claim and as usual you either ignored or did not understand the support. Or else you lied about me not supporting my claims.

When you ignore evidence when it is presented to you, you have no grounds for claiming that the other person does not support his claims.

Read the article that I linked for you. It explains why it is thought that neither Petrine epistle, and especially not II Peter was written by Peter.

 

[rrobs]

Studying the Bible involves much more than merely reading it and putting a flawed interpretation to what you read.

Well said for an Atheist!

​

2 Tim 2:15,

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
​

Study...work...rightly dividing; they all take effort beyond a cursory reading for sure.

 

[rrobs]

yeah, sure. Jesus can come back anytime. In my country it's even evening already!

Maybe tomorrow night then!

The cosmos in the first version of the earth... was included in it. I mean the cosmos was below or attached to the firmament. That one came down during the flood... and so did the whole of the cosmos.

Today, we don't see any firmament in the sky. I conclude, the whole make-up of earth no. 2 and allocation of the stars and the sun... changed.

2 Pet 3:6,

Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
​

This says the cosmos perished. It leaves no room for anything, including Noah, to have been saved. That's one reason I believe it is talking about a complete destruction of God's original creation in Genesis 1:1.

Some of the angels rebelled (Satan and his cohorts) and that world was destroyed. Genesis 1:2 shows God beginning the reconstruction. 2 Corinthians 12:2 mentions a "third" heaven.

First heaven - Genesis 1:1
Second heaven - Genesis 1:2
Third heaveb - Rev 21:2​

1 Pet 3:20,

Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
​

In this verse, we see that eight souls were saved. Somewhat different than 2 Peter 3:6 where no mention of anything being saved.

 

[thomas t]

LOL! An observation is never an "empty claim". It is based upon your post that I quoted. By the way, I supported my claim and as usual you either ignored or did not understand the support. Or else you lied about me not supporting my claims.

When you ignore evidence when it is presented to you, you have no grounds for claiming that the other person does not support his claims.

Read the article that I linked for you. It explains why it is thought that neither Petrine epistle, and especially not II Peter was written by Peter.

Subduction Zone, I don't discuss with you,
here is why:
too many unsubstanciated claims.
For the current post, I highlighted it again in red color. see above!
Regards,
Thomas

 

[rrobs]

look, did I tell you alredy that I don't debate with you? Actually I don't.

and here is why: usually you don't back up anything you say - be it for those people who didn't study or for those who did.
I highlighted empty claims from this current post in red color, go ahead and reread your post with the highlighted passages.

So now you come up with the idea that I could ask for substanciation.
Well, if I engage with someone on a discussion here on RF, I expect them to back their points up without me asking. Especially in cases when people resort to claims about me as a person such as "you don't want to learn" (see above in your post). These, of course, need instant backing from the poster who came up with such a claim. Otherwise I dismiss it by default.

EDITED to add last paragraph.

When there is nothing of substance to say it's all to easy to just say things like, "you don't want to learn." Sounds like, "blah, blah, blah" to me.

Personally, I try my best to avoid personal attacks like that. I don't know where to go from there when someone says that to me. Like you said, it is almost impossible to have a meaningful discussing when it gets to that level.

Nonetheless, you are holding forth the scriptures and God says it will not return void but will accomplish the purpose for which He intended.

2 Cor 5:20,

Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech [you] by us: we pray [you] in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.
​

An ambassador is responsible for proclaiming the exact message given him by his leaders. He is in no ways responsible for the answer. All we do is speak and then we can pray for someone accepting the message, but we don't have to force them. When we hold forth that wonderful Word of God, we have fulfilled our responsibility before God.

1Cor 3:6,

I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.​

We water and plant, but it's God that gives the increase. God does all the heavy lifting, not us.

God bless...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well said for an Atheist!

​

2 Tim 2:15,

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
​

Study...work...rightly dividing; they all take effort beyond a cursory reading for sure.

One needs to be careful if one is a Christian. Seminaries are loaded with ex-Christians that studied too well.

 

[thomas t]

This says the cosmos perished. It leaves no room for anything, including Noah, to have been saved. That's one reason I believe it is talking about a complete destruction of God's original creation in Genesis 1:1.

ah no, here we disagree. When a house is completely destroyed (earthquake or whatever), a beetle living in there might survive the destruction!

Some of the angels rebelled (Satan and his cohorts) and that world was destroyed. Genesis 1:2 shows God beginning the reconstruction. 2 Corinthians 12:2 mentions a "third" heaven.

First heaven - Genesis 1:1
Second heaven - Genesis 1:2
Third heaveb - Rev 21:2

Revelation 21:2 does not say "third", here you are smuggling in a word that isn't there .
You're making a smart point about the third heaven in 2 Corinthians 12:2 !
Thank you for bringing that up!
However, I don't count the way you do.

Here, let me count with you:
First heaven: Genesis 1.
Second heaven: now.
Third heaven: the one that will be according to Isaiah 65:17.

Thomas

 

[Subduction Zone]

Subduction Zone, I don't discuss with you,
here is why:
too many unsubstanciated claims.
For the current post, I highlighted it again in red color. see above!
Regards,
Thomas

And you continue with your claim that is not only unsubstantiated, but refuted as well.

You do not seem to even understand what an unsubstantiated claim is. If someone makes a claim you can always challenge it. At that point it is too early to claim that it is unsubstantiated. If the person refuses to support their claims then they are unsubstantiated. Like yours. You cannot support your claim about the new Earth except for one verse taken out of context from a book that is pseudographical.

 

[rrobs]

Doesn't matter... they dont represent that diagram.

What do you mean it doesn't matter? It totally matters. It answers your question head on. You asked me by what authority I say the world is not constructed like the diagram. I gave you my answer. Maybe you didn't like it, but if you are going to reply, at least try to make some sense.

 

[rrobs]

ah no, here we disagree. When a house is completely destroyed (earthquake or whatever), a beetle living in there might survive the destruction!

Revelation 21:2 does not say "third", here you are smuggling in a word that isn't there .
You're making a smart point about the third heaven in 2 Corinthians 12:2 !
Thank you for bringing that up!
However, I don't count the way you do.

Here, let me count with you:
First heaven: Genesis 1.
Second heaven: now.
Third heaven: the one that will be according to Isaiah 65:17.

Thomas

I think we're counting the same way. Maybe you said it better, but it's the same way I understand it.

 

[rrobs]

One needs to be careful if one is a Christian. Seminaries are loaded with ex-Christians that studied too well.

I call 'em cemeteries! That's kind what Paul thought also.

Phil 3:4-8,

4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:

5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, [of] the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;

6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.​

8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things [but] loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them [but] dung, that I may win Christ,​

 

[Subduction Zone]

I call 'em cemeteries! That's kind what Paul thought also.

Phil 3:4-8,

4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:

5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, [of] the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;

6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.​

8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things [but] loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them [but] dung, that I may win Christ,​

You missed the point. A proper understanding of the Bible appears to refute it.

 

[robocop (actually)]

What do you mean it doesn't matter? It totally matters. It answers your question head on. You asked me by what authority I say the world is not constructed like the diagram. I gave you my answer. Maybe you didn't like it, but if you are going to reply, at least try to make some sense.

What I'm trying to say is that you may not know the message the diagram intends to convey. I'm not by my computer now, but I can give you an example later.

 

[robocop (actually)]

What do you mean it doesn't matter? It totally matters. It answers your question head on. You asked me by what authority I say the world is not constructed like the diagram. I gave you my answer. Maybe you didn't like it, but if you are going to reply, at least try to make some sense.

I am sorry I have had so much anxiety and am exhausted. I wrote down on my phone to get back to you.

 

[robocop (actually)]

What do you mean it doesn't matter? It totally matters. It answers your question head on. You asked me by what authority I say the world is not constructed like the diagram. I gave you my answer. Maybe you didn't like it, but if you are going to reply, at least try to make some sense.

Take this picture for instance from the Pearl of Great Price:

Joseph Smith said it meant things that scientists didn't. Who's right? The scientists are right about the literal meaning, but Joseph Smith could have been right about the symbolic and actually factual meaning.

In your diagram, the way the diagram works could be explained differently. Sheol is below the earth. Maybe that means if you live less than worthy of the earth you go down, and so forth. Maybe there are other rules of science where it straight up works.

 

[Tiberius]

By pure visual observation only, how can you prove that day and night are a result of the earth's rotation?

The only thing you could actually observe is that the sun comes up in the East, travels across the sky and sets in the West. With nothing but that observation, the only logical conclusion is that the sun moves, while the earth stands still.

You can't. In either case, it's the fact that the sun and Earth are moving relative to each other. It's the same as how sometimes you are in a train and you think you have started moving backwards, but it's really just the train next to you that is moving forwards. It's relative movement, and from your perspective, the other train moving forwards or your train moving backwards works out to be the same thing. Your train and the other train are moving relative to each other. So, from our perspective, the sun going around the Earth, or the Earth spinning on its axis, are functionally the same movement. Although anyone with sufficient intelligence could work out there are two possible explanations that are functionally identical, so I don't get how you conclude that there is only one logical conclusion. Particular when the conclusion that you claim to be most logical requires the entire universe to rotate about the Earth's axis of rotation, where as the other conclusion requires only a single smallish planet to do so.

Of course, I would then ask you the following question: You claim that it could be the Sun moving around the Earth and the Earth is staying still, but what is the earth staying still relative to?

However, your question is entirely irrelevant. I never spoke about the Earth's rotation about its axis, I spoke of the Earth's orbit around the sun, and that can be demonstrated by measuring the parallax of nearby stars.

 

[Subduction Zone]

By pure visual observation only, how can you prove that day and night are a result of the earth's rotation?

The only thing you could actually observe is that the sun comes up in the East, travels across the sky and sets in the West. With nothing but that observation, the only logical conclusion is that the sun moves, while the earth stands still.

You can do much more than that.

You can prove that the Sun is very distant. You can prove that the Moon is distant too, though not as distant. You can show that the Earth rotates with star trails.

Do you know how a scientific hypothesis even works?

And of course the rotation of the Earth is confirmed by Foucault Pendulums.

 

[blü 2]

The creation story of Genesis is often used as "proof" that the Bible is false.

Only if it's asserted to be literally true. If it's taken as a story, or as folk history, there's usually no such problem.

Very few people, and I mean VERY few, even know what the scriptures are about.

Very true ─ and an area in which unbelievers frequently have the drop on believers.

But if one want to really know what it is about, they need read nothing more than the Gospel Luke or John.

Luke 24:27,

And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.​

John 5:39,

Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.​

I fear that's just usual Christian attempts at retrofit.

In fact Jesus is mentioned nowhere in the Tanakh, in no way at all fits the Jewish definition or understanding of a Jewish messiah, and in no way was or is the savior of the Jews, but the trigger for two thousand years of often murderous antisemitism,

The scriptures are about Jesus Christ.

No, only the NT is about Jesus.

 

[YoursTrue]

This is fascinating. So Jesus did not originally know he was God's only begotten son, he learned it from reading the Tanakh? Where in the Tanakh did he read that?



The fascinating thing is, the text in Genesis 1 actually does not say that.

It is certainly possible he heard he was not conceived in the 'normal,' natural way. And then at his baptism, the heavens were opened up to him. And he heard God's voice.
Matthew 3:17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my dearly loved Son, who brings me great joy.” And Luke 3:21 says, "When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And as he was praying, heaven was opened." So that would indicate that Jesus gained the knowledge from God, his Father, as to exactly who he was at that time.