Got doubts about Genesis?

[danieldemol]

Its been a little while since we re-visited the low hanging fruits of genesis, so at the request of @setarcos I intitiated this thread.

So what are your doubts about Genesis?

Personally mine would be the amount of non-scientific information in it. They would include but not be limited to the sun being created on the fourth day Genesis 1:14-19 (inclusive), or a talking Serpent Genesis 3:1 and others.

In my opinion

 

[Secret Chief]

Its been a little while since we re-visited the low hanging fruits of genesis, so at the request of @setarcos I intitiated this thread.

So what are your doubts about Genesis?

Personally mine would be the amount of non-scientific information in it. They would include but not be limited to the sun being created on the fourth day Genesis 1:14-19 (inclusive), or a talking Serpent Genesis 3:1 and others.

In my opinion

Rubbish after Gabriel left.

 

[exchemist]

Its been a little while since we re-visited the low hanging fruits of genesis, so at the request of @setarcos I intitiated this thread.

So what are your doubts about Genesis?

Personally mine would be the amount of non-scientific information in it. They would include but not be limited to the sun being created on the fourth day Genesis 1:14-19 (inclusive), or a talking Serpent Genesis 3:1 and others.

In my opinion

Most mainstream Christian denominations have no doubts about Genesis, having treated it allegorically for centuries.

 

[Augustus]

Rubbish after Gabriel left.

The Archangel?

 

[danieldemol]

Most mainstream Christian denominations have no doubts about Genesis, having treated it allegorically for centuries.

Sure, but Christians weren't the authors of Genesis. So I see them as post-hoc rationalising what looks to me like the attempts of a pre-scientific people to explain how they came to be there.

In my opinion

 

[danieldemol]

The Archangel?

I think @Secret Chief is reffering to the music band named Genesis ETA and it's singer Peter Gabriel.

 

[rational experiences]

Human genetics is owned by first human parents that changed.

Baby human adult says why.

The theme is genetics left our life as numbers man's math calculus temple pyramid science was introduced.

In genetics we know a human is the human. Mutual equal but two types and not one type. Species is ownership.

Is the first awareness the use of one is false.

First is not a number. It's a word.

Now if men put a number on a clock and say it's time. You count using numbers also not as time as inference is by topic. As number use. They gave elements as elements numbers for their owned science teaching.

Is where human lying is taught.

As humans put numbers on genetics by terms for their constant medical science teachings as a human.

What lying means in teaching.

By just humans.

So as a man named all words by human explanation women are secondary to his teaching. They learn only by him. So came after him as wisdom he says.

Then you get new advice about old man's choices. The human man used a letter to number advice. So a story emerged....Jesus.

It's just a theists fake story returned. As theory used lots of worded explanations before numbers. Just humans thinking.

Therefore the Jesus story is fake but proved a human theist using machines caused it.

It became a legal argument as men knew machines...they controlled them. Knew what substances of earths mass they wanted changed.

However as earth mass and it's heavens changed unnaturally. So legally they had to prove men with machines caused it. They argued as they weren't using earths heavens they said...just machine status.

Why it became written proof as data not actually the story. As thesis by any human is first only fake stories.

If humans count each day. If humans were doing active mass into light conversions of mass in nuclear science. Then observation by counting would discuss change as witnessed only.

 

[Augustus]

I think @Secret Chief is reffering to the music band named Genesis ETA and it's singer Peter Gabriel.

I know

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Its been a little while since we re-visited the low hanging fruits of genesis, so at the request of @setarcos I intitiated this thread.

So what are your doubts about Genesis?

Personally mine would be the amount of non-scientific information in it. They would include but not be limited to the sun being created on the fourth day Genesis 1:14-19 (inclusive), or a talking Serpent Genesis 3:1 and others.

In my opinion

Okay, I will go meta on it.
Strip away the particulars and the positions are in general terms of your variants and others:

Someone: For everything X is Y and not Z
Someone else: For everything X is Z and not Y.
Me: I don't know and I don't do everything that way anymore.

So for the following 2 versions of how to do everything:
"philosophy, (from Greek, by way of Latin, philosophia, “love of wisdom”) the rational, abstract, and methodical consideration of reality as a whole or of fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience."
Some people do however they do with variant as the rational, abstract, and methodical consideration of reality as a whole. I try not to do that and do the second one as the rational, abstract, and methodical consideration of fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience, for which I note the limits of even the rational, abstract, and methodical consideration.

Example as to the effect of what some people claim:
Someone: I can do the whole of the human existence and experience as the rational, abstract, and methodical consideration and nothing else.
Me: Sometimes I do it differently for those words.

With regards

 

[ADigitalArtist]

My doubts about Genesis is the parts where there's a god in it.

 

[rational experiences]

Does a human exist in the same moment as a sun?

No.

Your use a thought...might say an A or a Y..yet it's the same thought said in a given moment.

I say ashes coal gave you electricity.
You say now dusts gives me electricity.

The two not comparable.

Ashes dusts two topics both relate to a sun that changed an earth rock mass.

The mass origin first no longer existing.

So there is no rationale as Y you claim is the same ask as Why.....after...later...not now.

If it takes to position Y to begin questioning why you made change its nearly too late.

Rationale. As a natural human is first position.

Theists are secondary thinkers.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

My doubts about Genesis is the parts where there's a god in it.

Well, so me that is a variant of what the objective reality really is and some religious people are not the only ones, who claim to know that.

I am an irreligious agnostic atheistic apatheist for all variants of what objective reality really is and not just the God variant.

 

[Secret Chief]

The Archangel?

Peter

 

[exchemist]

Sure, but Christians weren't the authors of Genesis. So I see them as post-hoc rationalising what looks to me like the attempts of a pre-scientific people to explain how they came to be there.

In my opinion

What does any of that have to do with doubts? I thought this thread was supposed to be about doubts.

 

[danieldemol]

What does any of that have to do with doubts? I thought this thread was supposed to be about doubts.

Well if it was intended to be a literal story of how we got here by its original authors then it leaves a lot of room to doubt it's author was divinely guided.

In my opinion.

 

[exchemist]

Well if it was intended to be a literal story of how we got here by its original authors then it leaves a lot of room to doubt it's author was divinely guided.

In my opinion.

I refer you to post 3.

 

[danieldemol]

I refer you to post 3.

What does post#3 have to do with its original authors?

 

[1213]

...
Personally mine would be the amount of non-scientific information in it. They would include but not be limited to the sun being created on the fourth day Genesis 1:14-19 (inclusive), or a talking Serpent Genesis 3:1 and others.
...

Do you have any doubts against the "science"? Could it be wrong, or could you have misunderstood what the Bible tells?

 

[danieldemol]

Do you have any doubts against the "science"? Could it be wrong, or could you have misunderstood what the Bible tells?

No I don't have doubts about science because it is logical.

It could be wrong, but I tend to assume that a compassionate God would want us to be guided and able to foresee our errors and explain to us using logic and reason how we went wrong - none of which Genesis does.

As for whether I could have misunderstood what Genesis says it seems unlikely.

In my opinion

 

[Brian2]

No I don't have doubts about science because it is logical.

It could be wrong, but I tend to assume that a compassionate God would want us to be guided and able to foresee our errors and explain to us using logic and reason how we went wrong - none of which Genesis does.

As for whether I could have misunderstood what Genesis says it seems unlikely.

In my opinion

Yet I would say that A@E ended up knowing how they went wrong.