God Recreated the Earth 6,000 Years Ago!

[Thief]

I believe that the biblical story of creation doesn't describe God's original creation of Earth, but it actually describes the recreation of the Earth 6,000 years ago by God for the benefit of newly formed life who would have souls such as Adam, Eve and their descendants. I believe that according to the first few verses of Holy scripture in the book of Genesis, the Earth already had existed with water during the first day of its recreation. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters" - (Genesis 1:1-2)

I believe there was an older version of Earth that God had destroyed with a cloud of darkness and water, so that He could recreate the Earth with the right conditions for us humans who have souls. I think the first chapter of Genesis is widely misinterpreted as a narrative about the creation of Earth; whereas, it should be correctly interpreted as a narrative about the recreation of the Earth with more favorable conditions for human souls to exist. Does anybody else agree that the first few verses in the book of Genesis have been widely misinterpreted as a creation narrative; whereas, it should be correctly interpreted as a recreation narrative?

stepping back for a moment..
I believe Moses was given terminology he could deal with.

water first.....then light.
delivered in this way because explanation of fusion would not hold in the mind of Moses?
say to him hydrogen.....and he might tilt his head and just wonder
say to him fusion....he won't get it.
the formation of light in the gel of a new formed star?
not a clue.

 

[outhouse]

......it is logical to understand why the atheist can get no true understanding from scripture as it is not meant to be a historical narrative

False. I understand context and meaning.


YOU made a historical statement not a spiritual one. YOU cannot substantiate a historical one with any credibility and your soon going to ignore list for completely ignoring credible evidence sourced in full.

And making statements you know were not true.

I dont debate with people I have honesty issues with.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

False. I understand context and meaning.


YOU made a historical statement not a spiritual one. YOU cannot substantiate a historical one with any credibility and your soon going to ignore list for completely ignoring credible evidence sourced in full.

And making statements you know were not true.

I dont debate with people I have honesty issues with.

How could you claim to understand context and meaning of scripture and still be an atheist....if you truly understood it, you would be on your knees before the one God and offer your love with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength...and pray for forgiveness to your Lord for your lapse from living a holy life...

Haha....the very term 'honest atheist' is an oxymoron...God is the absolute truth....once a soul walks away from that, they are living a lie... An atheist debating the spiritual meaning of scripture certainly requires some chutzpah...

 

[gnostic]

Are you normally a liar by nature?....you can't say you are not aware of what has been revealed on this thread that archaeologist Prof. Albright declared there is evidence for Moses being a real entity and even more importantly there is the written biblical tradition itself which is based on an earlier oral tradition... What there is no evidence for is proof that Moses did not exist.....shutting your eyes and ears to the evidence I have referred to for a Moses like character to have existed does not change the truth...

No one cares what you believe, you can believe Jesus did not exist, that's fine too, but you can't prove there is no evidence...

I know about oral tradition...I haven't forgotten them.

First off, traditions - whether they written tradition or oral tradition - are not history. It never was.

Homer, the author of two Greek masterpieces - The Iliad and The Odyssey - wrote them during the 8th century BCE (Iron Age), have based his writings on oral traditions, but it could be tracked centuries before his time. Some parts were clearly his invention, but some other parts were clearly from oral traditions.

But that's not how we know these come from oral traditions. The style the Iliad and Odyssey were written and copied are in hexametric verses, indicate that these two poems were originally past down from master bard to a apprentices, or to be recited to audiences. Both poems are huge, and would be difficult for anyone to remember. But the hexameters were used for people who can't read and write, and the verses and the metric patterns used, would aid people to remember the number of verses.

The Babylonian myths of Gilgamesh and other tales, most deriving originally from oral traditions that dated centuries before its time, even predating Old Babylonian period, from the Sumerian traditions.

The epic of Gilgamesh is the most popular story in the Middle East during the mid-2nd millennium BCE, tablets and fragments can be found east and west of the Mesopotamia, and can even be found in Megiddo and Ugarit. There are even fragments further west in the Hittite empire and in Egypt.

The Jews indeed have good strong oral traditions, but they are not as old as you would think. The problem is with oral tradition is that there are no evidences to support these existed BEFORE the Iron Age (about 1000 BCE), and it is the same with written traditions.

 

[gnostic]

spiritual events have nothing to do with history.....

Well, duh!

I have been telling creationists here that the OT, particularly from Genesis to 2 Samuel that there are no historical evidences to support the characters and events...and that's including Moses, his exodus and Joshua leading the conquest of Canaan. It is all mythological.

stay with the discussion.
Moses existed.....not a matter of proving.

take the scenario on faith and then rationalize.

You have to take the narrative about Moses on faith, but ben q keep insisting there are evidences for Moses. He even quoted Dever, who clearly stated that there are no evidences to support Moses' existence:

But archaeology can do nothing to confirm such a figure as a historical personage, much less prove that he was the founder of later Israelite region

And yet ben kept insisting Moses' existence is a fact, saying that his quote on Dever prove his point.

But it doesn't prove his point. It prove that he has no comprehension of what he had quoted. He read, but don't understand. If there are no evidences for Moses' historicity or that of the exodus, then ben has NO facts.

Facts required evidences, faith and opinions don't. And ben has no evidences.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I know about oral tradition...I haven't forgotten them.

First off, traditions - whether they written tradition or oral tradition - are not history. It never was.

Homer, the author of two Greek masterpieces - The Iliad and The Odyssey - wrote them during the 8th century BCE (Iron Age), have based his writings on oral traditions, but it could be tracked centuries before his time. Some parts were clearly his invention, but some other parts were clearly from oral traditions.

But that's not how we know these come from oral traditions. The style the Iliad and Odyssey were written and copied are in hexametric verses, indicate that these two poems were originally past down from master bard to a apprentices, or to be recited to audiences. Both poems are huge, and would be difficult for anyone to remember. But the hexameters were used for people who can't read and write, and the verses and the metric patterns used, would aid people to remember the number of verses.

The Babylonian myths of Gilgamesh and other tales, most deriving originally from oral traditions that dated centuries before its time, even predating Old Babylonian period, from the Sumerian traditions.

The epic of Gilgamesh is the most popular story in the Middle East during the mid-2nd millennium BCE, tablets and fragments can be found east and west of the Mesopotamia, and can even be found in Megiddo and Ugarit. There are even fragments further west in the Hittite empire and in Egypt.

The Jews indeed have good strong oral traditions, but they are not as old as you would think. The problem is with oral tradition is that there are no evidences to support these existed BEFORE the Iron Age (about 1000 BCE), and it is the same with written traditions.

There is no physical evidence for a lot of these events because religion does not deal exclusively with the physical domain, it deals with all dimensions of existence....that is why taking religious scripture as literal historical events in this world as atheists do only highlights their ignorance of and about religion......

 

[gnostic]

How could you claim to understand context and meaning of scripture and still be an atheist....

I don't know outhouse's background, before he became atheist, or that he was always atheist.

But to say atheists can't understand the meaning of the bible, is blatant stereotyping or generalisation, because many atheists were former Christians, or were brought up as Christians. Some may who left the church, not because they don't understand the scriptures, but because they no longer believe in them.

You are confusing "believing" or "belief" with "knowing" and "understanding". They are not the same things.

Belief doesn't mean a person understand the scriptures. I have some who who can recite KJV bible, word-for-word, and yet, sometimes they don't grasp what they are reading, or they simply misunderstood it. In fact belief can cloud their judgement when interpreting verses in the bible.

In fact, right here in this forum, I have come across Christians, who have twisted what they read, instead of understanding what's right there in front of their faces.

And quite frankly, while I am impressed with thief's piety, his scholarship and understanding of bible, on the other hand, is seriously lacking.

In fact, in this thread, I am not impressed by your scholarship too.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Well, duh!

I have been telling creationists here that the OT, particularly from Genesis to 2 Samuel that there are no historical evidences to support the characters and events...and that's including Moses, his exodus and Joshua leading the conquest of Canaan. It is all mythological.


You have to take the narrative about Moses on faith, but ben q keep insisting there are evidences for Moses. He even quoted Dever, who clearly stated that there are no evidences to support Moses' existence:


And yet ben kept insisting Moses' existence is a fact, saying that his quote on Dever prove his point.

But it doesn't prove his point. It prove that he has no comprehension of what he had quoted. He read, but don't understand. If there are no evidences for Moses' historicity or that of the exodus, then ben has NO facts.

Facts required evidences, faith and opinions don't. And ben has no evidences.

I am a religious person, I understand the reality of spirit, I also understand that the non-believers can not ever in all eternity understand what scripture means..it requires the spiritual merit to warrant the divine grace to understand.. There is no proof that Moses was not real, and you have not offered any....and you can't because there is none.... Without the spiritual guidance, the existence of Moses will be a mystery to you at best...or you will be a non believer at worst.. However just to be clear...this has little to do with the literal narrative of scripture...but rather divine revelation....
You keep avoiding the fact that you have not, and can not provide any evidence to prove Moses was not a real entity...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I don't know outhouse's background, before he became atheist, or that he was always atheist.

But to say atheists can't understand the meaning of the bible, is blatant stereotyping or generalisation, because many atheists were former Christians, or were brought up as Christians. Some may who left the church, not because they don't understand the scriptures, but because they no longer believe in them.

You are confusing "believing" or "belief" with "knowing" and "understanding". They are not the same things.

Belief doesn't mean a person understand the scriptures. I have some who who can recite KJV bible, word-for-word, and yet, sometimes they don't grasp what they are reading, or they simply misunderstood it. In fact belief can cloud their judgement when interpreting verses in the bible.

In fact, right here in this forum, I have come across Christians, who have twisted what they read, instead of understanding what's right there in front of their faces.

And quite frankly, while I am impressed with thief's piety, his scholarship and understanding of bible, on the other hand, is seriously lacking.

In fact, in this thread, I am not impressed by your scholarship too.

I have no scholarship in religion though I have studied the works of scholars, my religion is not primarily based on others interpretations but direct subjective apprehension.. Without grace, no one can understand the bible....scholarship of scripture without grace is worthless...as all atheist and agnostic views are....

 

[gnostic]

I am a religious person, I understand the reality of spirit, I also understand that the non-believers can not ever in all eternity understand what scripture means..it requires the spiritual merit to warrant the divine grace to understand.. There is no proof that Moses was not real, and you have not offered any....and you can't because there is none.... Without the spiritual guidance, the existence of Moses will be a mystery to you at best...or you will be a non believer at worst.. However just to be clear...this has little to do with the literal narrative of scripture...but rather divine revelation....
You keep avoiding the fact that you have not, and can not provide any evidence to prove Moses was not a real entity...

Then present your sources or evidences that indicate Moses is real.

You quoted Dever himself, who clearly stated that there are no evidences to support Moses as being a "historical personage". Without evidences, then Moses and his story (as presented in the Torah) are not fact.

And please don't say Albright being your sources, since all his claims of historicity in the Old Testament, have been thoroughly refuted. He is nothing more than psuedo-archaeologist.

Present some evidences so that I can view and see if I can verify or not.

 

[Thief]

Well, duh!

I have been telling creationists here that the OT, particularly from Genesis to 2 Samuel that there are no historical evidences to support the characters and events...and that's including Moses, his exodus and Joshua leading the conquest of Canaan. It is all mythological.


You have to take the narrative about Moses on faith, but ben q keep insisting there are evidences for Moses. He even quoted Dever, who clearly stated that there are no evidences to support Moses' existence:


And yet ben kept insisting Moses' existence is a fact, saying that his quote on Dever prove his point.

But it doesn't prove his point. It prove that he has no comprehension of what he had quoted. He read, but don't understand. If there are no evidences for Moses' historicity or that of the exodus, then ben has NO facts.

Facts required evidences, faith and opinions don't. And ben has no evidences.

when considering Moses.....it's a matter of reasoning.
if your reasoning leads to a better character......the story of Moses did what it should have.

proving Moses to be a real person after so many years?....really?
let's be more rational.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I'm so glad this thread is active again.

 

[gnostic]

when considering Moses.....it's a matter of reasoning.
if your reasoning leads to a better character......the story of Moses did what it should have.

proving Moses to be a real person after so many years?....really?
let's be more rational.

Thief, you are arguing with the wrong person.

I am bring the rational one here.

You quoted me, but didn't understand what I have been saying. I am not the one trying to prove Moses is real. Please re-read what you have quoted.

I have been the one saying that Moses wasn't a real living person - hence a mythological figure.

Ben was the one arguing that Moses did exist as a historical figure, but have no evidences for one.

I was the one who have been saying the exodus is mythological events, and should be view as allegory, in which it teach you some lessons, like one of Jesus' parables.

Ben is the one saying not only does Moses exist, but it happened the way books of Moses had narrated.

You have either misread what I wrote, or you are arguing with me for sake of arguing with me.

 

[Thief]

Thief, you are arguing with the wrong person.

I am bring the rational one here.

You quoted me, but didn't understand what I have been saying. I am not the one trying to prove Moses is real. Please re-read what you have quoted.

I have been the one saying that Moses wasn't a real living person - hence a mythological figure.

Ben was the one arguing that Moses did exist as a historical figure, but have no evidences for one.

I was the one who have been saying the exodus is mythological events, and should be view as allegory, in which it teach you some lessons, like one of Jesus' parables.

Ben is the one saying not only does Moses exist, but it happened the way books of Moses had narrated.

You have either misread what I wrote, or you are arguing with me for sake of arguing with me.

ok...I'll take Ben's side....
Moses was a real person.
I don't have to prove it.

the storyline may have exaggeration....
the storyline may have metaphors....

but I get the point....and it's all a matter of faith.

 

[Thief]

I'm so glad this thread is active again.

you're welcome

 

[outhouse]

Moses was a real person.

In the same way Bilbo Baggins is?

 

[outhouse]

I'm so glad this thread is active again.

LOL Active might not be the best word. The only thing active is the constant proselytizing of those who refuse credible evidence in favor of imaginative evidence.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Then present your sources or evidences that indicate Moses is real.

You quoted Dever himself, who clearly stated that there are no evidences to support Moses as being a "historical personage". Without evidences, then Moses and his story (as presented in the Torah) are not fact.

And please don't say Albright being your sources, since all his claims of historicity in the Old Testament, have been thoroughly refuted. He is nothing more than psuedo-archaeologist.

Present some evidences so that I can view and see if I can verify or not.

Haha..seriously...enough of this nonsense....why do you not ask God directly, instead of relying on an atheists or scholars of materialist science for proof....for God is the ultimate proof of all scripture....you will not be let down if you are sincere....but God does not answer in words...but in spiritual revelation....

 

[gnostic]

but I get the point....and it's all a matter of faith.

That's what I've been telling you and ben, all along.

It is matter of faith, not fact. (referring to the matter of what you believe about the scriptures.)

• Facts require evidences, faith doesn't require evidences.

• Facts require verification, faith doesn't.

So when neither of you won't provide verifiable evidences, then what you believe that Moses exist is just your faith in the books about Moses is true, not because of any historical or archaeological evidences.

You are both slow on the mark in grasping the differences between fact and faith, and how they are completely unrelated.

 

[outhouse]

And many people place faith in things that do not exist, or never existed.

Many people hear voices in their head and attribute it to a concept defined solely on where they were born