Thank you, thank you, thank you, oh detector of encoded meanings.True, but the literalist perspective on Genesis is only one aspect of the encoded meaning(s).
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Thank you, thank you, thank you, oh detector of encoded meanings.True, but the literalist perspective on Genesis is only one aspect of the encoded meaning(s).
Thank you for detecting the detector......... Now we need a detector for the detector that detects the detector of encoded meanings.....Do we have a volunteer?:shoutThank you, thank you, thank you, oh detector of encoded meanings.
Thank you, thank you, thank you, oh detector of encoded meanings.
I think this could be justification.........No problem! Anytime you need help with scriptural conundrums, you just let me know. :slap:
I wont argue this, but I would suggest that some people may interpret this assumption as a critical flaw.The Bible doesn't attempt to prove God, it assumes Him.
No problemo.......... They have the right to disagree if they desire to.....fantôme profane;1240748 said:I wont argue this, but I would suggest that some people may interpret this assumption as a critical flaw.
Why should we assume that something can be created out of nothing when we have never observed it happen?The Bible doesn't attempt to prove God, it assumes Him. The Bible begins with the assumption that God exists and that He existed eternally before He created humanity and placed life on earth. No where in the scripture is chance taught for the creation of the universe or the human race. God created matter out of nothing and formed it into living objects. The Bible does not tell us how the human race and the universe were actually created. It does assert the premise that God brought it all into being.
Those that reject the Biblical version of creation start with presuppositions on which their claims are based. Everyone has their own assumption but is it able to be proven scientifically? On what evidence do our assumptions rest?
The Big Bang, quantum vacuum fluctuations, ....Why should we assume that something can be created out of nothing when we have never observed it happen?
I knew the big bang " thang" would surface at some point......The Big Bang, quantum vacuum fluctuations, ....
The Big Bang, quantum vacuum fluctuations, ....
I don't presume to know. Do you?Do you think either of these started with nothing?
I don't presume to know. Do you?
I'll take that as a less than coherent "No" ...The Big Bang makes no predictions about what may have preceded this universe, so it is just as likely that there was something rather than nothing.I don't presume to know. Do you?
As for the experiments in quantum fluctuation, they always seem to start with something too.
Did your question exist before you asked it?Why should we assume that something can be created out of nothing when we have never observed it happen?
Did your question exist before you asked it?
But not the question, itself --and was there a time before your comprehension of the knowledge referenced existed?My question came from my understanding of cosmology and my comprehension of the English language, both of which existed before my question.
The Big Bang makes no predictions about what may have preceded this universe, so it is just as likely that there was something rather than nothing.
As for the experiments in quantum fluctuation, they always seem to start with something too.
But not the question, itself --and was there a time before your comprehension of the knowledge referenced existed?