Origin of life, Adam and the Dinosaurs

[URAVIP2ME]

Isn't a day determined by one rotation of the earth ? Could not an omnipotent God have an abiity to effect this ? One of the planets, i don't remember which has a day (one complete rotation, of something like 35 earth days) just say'n

I find Genesis chapter one is talking about a ' creative week '.
The 1st six days of that creative ' 7-day week ' starts with Not dealing with matter or the material, but about arranging and preparing Earth for man to inhabit Earth. The already existing light was Now reaching earth's surface.
ALL of the creative days are summed up by the singular word "day" at Genesis 2:4 thus showing shades of meaning for the word day. Including the 7th day. God rested from further creating, thus the 7th day is called God's rest day.
God's 7th day was still on going at the time of Hebrews 4:4-10.

 

[arthra]

Unfortunately, he hasn't hit a very big audience. He should have gone on Fox News to promote it.

"Big audiences" unfortunately don't always get it do they?... but given time more and more of them will I think...

 

[Kemosloby]

True, the world of badness (Not Earth) was washed away by the Genesis Flood, but God, according to Isaiah 45:18, created the Earth to be inhabited. Jesus taught the humble meek will inherit the Earth.
The Earth, according to Ecclesiastes 1:4 B, exists forever, so the ' fire' is a symbolic fire.
It is the wicked who will be 'destroyed forever' - Psalms 92:7.
I find it's the words from Jesus' mouth which will execute the wicked according to Isaiah 11:3-4; Revelation 19:14-16.
We are now in the 'last days of badness on Earth' as defined at 2 Timothy 3:1-5,13.
Also, so to speak, is Jesus' coming 'millennium-long day' of governing over Earth when earth's nations will be healed according to Revelation 22:2. Mankind will see the return of the Genesis ' tree of life ' thus even enemy death will be No more ever again on Earth according to 1 Corinthians 15:24-26; Isaiah 25:8.

Do you believe there will be a resurrection of the dead?

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

It was Not God, but Pharaoh who would Not let God's people go,-> so the blood guilt is on Pharaoh's hands.

That is bull****.

If my brother went to prison for a crime he did not commit and in response I went into a bank with a gun and took 20 hostages and said I would kill one on the hour until they brought me my brother and I ended up killing people you could say that the government is partially to blame, but I would definitely be at fault as well.

 

[Kemosloby]

True, the world of badness (Not Earth) was washed away by the Genesis Flood, but God, according to Isaiah 45:18, created the Earth to be inhabited. Jesus taught the humble meek will inherit the Earth.
The Earth, according to Ecclesiastes 1:4 B, exists forever, so the ' fire' is a symbolic fire.
It is the wicked who will be 'destroyed forever' - Psalms 92:7.
I find it's the words from Jesus' mouth which will execute the wicked according to Isaiah 11:3-4; Revelation 19:14-16.
We are now in the 'last days of badness on Earth' as defined at 2 Timothy 3:1-5,13.
Also, so to speak, is Jesus' coming 'millennium-long day' of governing over Earth when earth's nations will be healed according to Revelation 22:2. Mankind will see the return of the Genesis ' tree of life ' thus even enemy death will be No more ever again on Earth according to 1 Corinthians 15:24-26; Isaiah 25:8.

That doesn't really add up for me, and I don't get the impression that is how it will go. A day, the "day of the Lord" could be 1,000 years, but a day could also be a day our time. Maybe it will be slow day, taking a natural progression over 1,000 years; but could instead be a fast day of supernatural events. "In the blink of an eye" Destruction of the Earth and everything in it, a New Heaven and Earth, Resurrectioin of the dead. It sounds to me like it will be a supernatural day and happen quickly.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What kid knows about raising numbers to the power of 2?

Good point. The discussion probably would have ended sooner and the punches thrown earlier than I indicated in that hypothetical schoolyard debate, which seems to nicely epitomize the history of tribalistic religion.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Lets do a test that totally eliminates the possibility of a God Then lets do another test as to why the Big Bang occurred and then why a huge chain of extremely improbable events, that reached the level of being statistically impossible , created earth, a place almost perfect for the carbon based life forms. Our last test should be how the non living matter of earth combined by chance and burst into life. To the best of my ability I have done all three. They prove to me that the answer to your question is yes.

You're misunderstanding probability

I agree with you that the chain of events leading up to this moment is statistically unlikely, but that that does not mean what you imply it does, namely, that an intelligent designer was involved, since the same would be true without an intelligent designer. We would expect that evolution would be a certainty once the necessary elements were in place even though the precise path, whatever that was, would be statistically unlikely. The next bridge hand I pick up will be very unlikely - 1 chance of getting that hand out of 635,013,559,600 - but I consider having one of them to be a certainty

It's not a coincidence that fish have gills and mammals lungs. We expect life to adapt to its environment just like we expect rainwater falling into a puddle to conform to the shape of the puddle. Your argument is tantamount to asking what the odds are that the puddle would find a hole just the right shape for it.

And if we visit another heavenly body with life, we will expect it to be just perfect for its environment as well, whatever that is and however hostile it is to us.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There is a theological doctrine which I believe ( very unpopular, the theologians who first posited it took a lot of guff) called "The Open View of God". In short it proposes that God does not know what hasn't occurred, unless he uses omnipotence to reach into history and bring it about. However, being God he can envision every possibility, and if he chooses, be prepared to perfectly respond to each. Thus total free will is established, and it totally absolves God of creating evil. To support this among believers requires a lot of Bible exegesis, answering many questions, some a little hostile, and having a thick skin. But I don't believe in an eternal hell, so I am used to the incoming. Without these beliefs, that I have solidly proven to myself from the Bible, I might still be an atheist.

That was interesting.

We seem to agree that removing omniscience from God's C.V. strengthens the religion. In the days of the Bible writers, when various tribes were represented by different god, there was probably an escalation of the Hebrew god's powers to eclipse those of Baal or whoever, and omnipotence and omniscience strengthened the religion.

But today, in the light of so many advances in understanding, they hurt it. The ancients didn't have the problem of the existence of evil to deal with, but modern theologians do. Today, that doctrine is counterproductive. It is sufficient that God be just as prescient and potent as necessary to create a universe, create man, and collect souls for heaven, and no more.

What you and I are doing - modifying mainstream doctrine to make it conform better to reality - is probably what has been happening since man first began generating stories about gods. In each era, the narrative resembles the contemporary state of understanding

Your comment on hell also reflects that need to make modifications there. Hell theology is not consistent with a good, loving god. That wasn't a problem when it was created, and the more threatening the depiction of hell was, the more effective the doctrine.

But today, those ideas are becoming a problem, and we see evidence of theological adaptations.

There's a discussion going on in another thread about whether the ancients believed that the earth had four corners or that the days of creation were 24 hour periods. Elsewhere, a poster said that the ancients couldn't have literally believed that people lived for 900 years.

Calling all of these metaphorical is another adaptation to modernity. Once upon a time, there was no argument against any of those claims. Now, looking through modern eyes, they're apparently a problem, and the theology is being revised to conform to what is known today.

That's probably a good thing. The ones lagging furthest behind - the fundamentalists and creationists - are more of a problem than those trying to adapt to what is known today.

Could America have had its revolution if there wasn't a willingness to revisit the meaning of Romans 13:1-2 ? :

"Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."

It's interesting how the founding fathers dealt with this. They created rights - the right to overthrow an unjust government - and attributed them to the source of the scripture being ignored, our Creator. That was a good use of this process.

Could slavery have been abolished if there wasn't a willingness to incorporate an emerging morality regarding slavery and reinterpret Ephesians 6:5?

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ."

So I say go for it, shmogie. Jettison of omniscience, omnipotence, and hell theology. They're anchors.

 

[shmogie]

That was interesting.

We seem to agree that removing omniscience from God's C.V. strengthens the religion. In the days of the Bible writers, when various tribes were represented by different god, there was probably an escalation of the Hebrew god's powers to eclipse those of Baal or whoever, and omnipotence and omniscience strengthened the religion.

But today, in the light of so many advances in understanding, they hurt it. The ancients didn't have the problem of the existence of evil to deal with, but modern theologians do. Today, that doctrine is counterproductive. It is sufficient that God be just as prescient and potent as necessary to create a universe, create man, and collect souls for heaven, and no more.

What you and I are doing - modifying mainstream doctrine to make it conform better to reality - is probably what has been happening since man first began generating stories about gods. In each era, the narrative resembles the contemporary state of understanding

Your comment on hell also reflects that need to make modifications there. Hell theology is not consistent with a good, loving god. That wasn't a problem when it was created, and the more threatening the depiction of hell was, the more effective the doctrine.

But today, those ideas are becoming a problem, and we see evidence of theological adaptations.

There's a discussion going on in another thread about whether the ancients believed that the earth had four corners or that the days of creation were 24 hour periods. Elsewhere, a poster said that the ancients couldn't have literally believed that people lived for 900 years.

Calling all of these metaphorical is another adaptation to modernity. Once upon a time, there was no argument against any of those claims. Now, looking through modern eyes, they're apparently a problem, and the theology is being revised to conform to what is known today.

That's probably a good thing. The ones lagging furthest behind - the fundamentalists and creationists - are more of a problem than those trying to adapt to what is known today.

Could America have had its revolution if there wasn't a willingness to revisit the meaning of Romans 13:1-2 ? :

"Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."

It's interesting how the founding fathers dealt with this. They created rights - the right to overthrow an unjust government - and attributed them to the source of the scripture being ignored, our Creator. That was a good use of this process.

Could slavery have been abolished if there wasn't a willingness to incorporate an emerging morality regarding slavery and reinterpret Ephesians 6:5?

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ."

So I say go for it, shmogie. Jettison of omniscience, omnipotence, and hell theology. They're anchors.

Doctrine cannot be established by one verse. Paul says obey the authorities. There are other verses that talk about the right to self defense and the need to fight evil. Your quote from Paul re slavery implies he supported it. Elsewhere he says that a slave should take advantage of any opportunity to be free, and says emphatically that slavery is wrong and evil. The Bible says doctrine is determined "line upon line, precept upon precept". That is what I do. I actually STUDY what is written THEN determine what I believe

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It was Not God, but Pharaoh who would Not let God's people go,-> so the blood guilt is on Pharaoh's hands

What does it mean to say that God hardened pharaoh's heart?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

To me, how does Genesis 2:4 seal 6 days being six 24-hour days when ALL of the creative days are summed up by the singular word "day".

There is more context than just the use of the word "day."

You wrote, "Also, to me at Genesis 1:5 God calls the ' daylight ' hours as ' day '. We know 'daylight hours' are a portion of a 24 hour day and Not 24 hours of daylight."

"And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day." - Genesis 1:5

It is rather clear that evening refers to the beginning of a night, and morning to the beginning of a single period of continuous daylight. A 24 hour day is one day and one night as the terms are used in Genesis 1:5.

Once you start bringing cycles into the matter, the meaning of "day" (In Noah's day) is eliminated. It becomes quite clear which definition of "day"applies in each context.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Doctrine cannot be established by one verse. Paul says obey the authorities. There are other verses that talk about the right to self defense and the need to fight evil. Your quote from Paul re slavery implies he supported it. Elsewhere he says that a slave should take advantage of any opportunity to be free, and says emphatically that slavery is wrong and evil. The Bible says doctrine is determined "line upon line, precept upon precept". That is what I do. I actually STUDY what is written THEN determine what I believe

Then you've got contradictory scriptures. Since accepting that is not an option for the believer, he must pick an interpretation that he likes, emphasize the scriptures that support it, and neutralize the contradictory ones.

So which do you like better- submit to kings and slavers, or cast off the chains? Take your pick. Those that like kingship and slavery will emphasize the scriptures you downplay, and downplay those that you are emphasizing.

That's what an unbeliever sees.

I once mentioned to you that I thought that the unbeliever was in a better position to evaluate scripture because he has no need to make it make sense, and you became offended and began shunning me. I want to revisit that,and hope that you can understand that these opinions are held sincerely and offered constructively, not to be impious or offend believers.

The Klansman likes the pro-slavery scriptures and ignores the ones criticizing or condemning it. You do it the other way around. I do neither. I just note the contradiction and recognize the fingerprint of men writing using the voice of a contrived god, but not always agreeing one with another.

Who has the most objective viewpoint of the three of us?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Do you believe there will be a resurrection of the dead?

Thank you for asking. I find that all of the resurrections that Jesus performed were bringing people back to a happy-and-healthy physical resurrection right here on Earth. To me, what Jesus did was a small preview, or a coming attraction, of what Jesus will once again be doing during his millennium-long day of governing over Earth, but this time on a grand-global scale going all the way back to Abel.
So, yes I believe there 'will be' a resurrection for the dead. 'will be' as used in the ' future tense' found at Acts of the Apostles 24:15 that there ' is going to be ' a resurrection......
The only hope people had before Jesus died was to come back to physical life on Earth - John 3:13
The way to heaven was opened up to just some people, such as Jesus' apostles, whereas the majority of mankind can be part of the humble meek who will inherit the Earth as Jesus' promised at Matthew 5:5.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

What does it mean to say that God hardened pharaoh's heart?

To me, in a nut shell, God allowed circumstances that brought about Pharaoh hardening his own heart such as brought out at Exodus 8:14; Exodus 8:32

 

[URAVIP2ME]

That is bull****.
If my brother went to prison for a crime he did not commit and in response I went into a bank with a gun and took 20 hostages and said I would kill one on the hour until they brought me my brother and I ended up killing people you could say that the government is partially to blame, but I would definitely be at fault as well.

I don't get your ^above ^ point because there is a difference between killing and murder.
You would be guilty of murder, and ' life for life ' would stand for justice in the form of your being executed for murder.
Under the temporary Constitution of the Mosaic Law there had to be plural witnesses in order for a person to go to jail. ( Since there were No prisons in ancient Israel, a person could go to a ' city of refuge' )

 

[URAVIP2ME]

That doesn't really add up for me, and I don't get the impression that is how it will go. A day, the "day of the Lord" could be 1,000 years, but a day could also be a day our time. Maybe it will be slow day, taking a natural progression over 1,000 years; but could instead be a fast day of supernatural events. "In the blink of an eye" Destruction of the Earth and everything in it, a New Heaven and Earth, Resurrectioin of the dead. It sounds to me like it will be a supernatural day and happen quickly.

The Earth abides forever according to Ecclesiastes 1:4 B; Psalms 104:5; Psalms 96:10; Psalms 78:69 B.
To me, there will be No destruction of the Earth, rather the humble meek people will inherit the Earth.
Inherit Earth once Jesus removes the wicked from Earth by the executional words from his mouth.
- Isaiah 11:3-4; Revelation 19:14-16. - Proverbs 2:21-22 ; Psalms 104:35 ; Psalms 92:7

Perhaps this might help looking at 2 Peter 3:5,7,13
In verse 5 we read about the heavens and earth of OLD
In verse 7 we read about the heavens and earth of NOW
In verse 13 we read about the NEW heavens and the NEW earth

Verse 5 is about the heavens and earth of Noah's day. The literal heavens and earth were Not destroyed.
Verse 7 is about the heavens and earth from Noah's day to our day or time frame.
Verse 13 is Not about destruction, but as the heavens and earth were cleansed in the past so it will be again.
Jesus, as king of God's kingdom government, will govern over earth for a thousand years, then after the thousand years have ended then Jesus gives back God's kingdom to his God according to 1 Corinthians 15:24-26.
So, to me, ' Resurrection Day ' is a 'thousand-year day' when the majority of mankind will have a happy-and-healthy physical resurrection going all the way back to Abel - John 3:13

 

[URAVIP2ME]

There is more context than just the use of the word "day."
You wrote, "Also, to me at Genesis 1:5 God calls the ' daylight ' hours as ' day '. We know 'daylight hours' are a portion of a 24 hour day and Not 24 hours of daylight."
"And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day." - Genesis 1:5
It is rather clear that evening refers to the beginning of a night, and morning to the beginning of a single period of continuous daylight. A 24 hour day is one day and one night as the terms are used in Genesis 1:5.
Once you start bringing cycles into the matter, the meaning of "day" (In Noah's day) is eliminated. It becomes quite clear which definition of "day"applies in each context.

Besides 6 creative days and including God's 7th day, then we have a whole 'week'.
Since God is resting from further creative works on His rest day, which was still in effect in the first century, according to Hebrews 4:4-11, so since God's rest day is more than a 24-hour day, so why conclude the 6 creative days which make up a
}collective ' week ' be only 24 hours long. There is Nothing in Genesis to even say if each of the creative days were of the same length of time or of differing lengths of time.

 

[Kemosloby]

The Earth abides forever according to Ecclesiastes 1:4 B; Psalms 104:5; Psalms 96:10; Psalms 78:69 B.
To me, there will be No destruction of the Earth, rather the humble meek people will inherit the Earth.
Inherit Earth once Jesus removes the wicked from Earth by the executional words from his mouth.
- Isaiah 11:3-4; Revelation 19:14-16. - Proverbs 2:21-22 ; Psalms 104:35 ; Psalms 92:7

Perhaps this might help looking at 2 Peter 3:5,7,13
In verse 5 we read about the heavens and earth of OLD
In verse 7 we read about the heavens and earth of NOW
In verse 13 we read about the NEW heavens and the NEW earth

Verse 5 is about the heavens and earth of Noah's day. The literal heavens and earth were Not destroyed.
Verse 7 is about the heavens and earth from Noah's day to our day or time frame.
Verse 13 is Not about destruction, but as the heavens and earth were cleansed in the past so it will be again.
Jesus, as king of God's kingdom government, will govern over earth for a thousand years, then after the thousand years have ended then Jesus gives back God's kingdom to his God according to 1 Corinthians 15:24-26.
So, to me, ' Resurrection Day ' is a 'thousand-year day' when the majority of mankind will have a happy-and-healthy physical resurrection going all the way back to Abel - John 3:13

You and I just disagree. Sure the Earth may abide forever, but God's going to wipe it clean with fire, Make the days of Noah look like a honeymoon.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

You and I just disagree. Sure the Earth may abide forever, but God's going to wipe it clean with fire, Make the days of Noah look like a honeymoon.

The ' fire ' of 2 Peter 3:10 is Not literal destruction. Why would God destroy heaven (Our Father which art in Heaven).
In Scripture ' heavens' can stand for corrupted ruling authorities over mankind; wicked heavens or governments.
I find that God's Day is: to annihilate the wicked out of the land as mentioned at Isaiah 13:9.
God's day to me is a day of salvation - Ezekiel 9:4 - for a great crowd of people will come through the coming great tribulation of Revelation 7:14; Isaiah 26:20.

The periodic table was Not known in the first century, so the 'elements' would be the base elementary things of the world of badness when the wicked are destroyed as if they were consumed - Malachi 4:1; Psalms 92:7.
Who ' remains ' according to Proverbs 2:21-22, but as Jesus' promised the meek will inherit the Earth.
The Earth would have to be here in order to inherit the Earth. An inheritance comes ' after ' someone is gone.
In this case, it is after the wicked are gone by the executional words from Jesus' mouth - Isaiah 11:3-4. Revelation 19:14-16
We are nearing the soon coming ' time of separation ' on Earth as mentioned at Matthew 25:31-33,37.
The humble meek, or figurative sheep-like ones, have fine qualities which those qualities will prove to be incombustible or fire proof when the figurative great tribulation heat is on, before Jesus, as Prince of Peace, ushers in global Peace on Earth among persons of goodwill.

 

[Kemosloby]

The ' fire ' of 2 Peter 3:10 is Not literal destruction. Why would God destroy heaven (Our Father which art in Heaven).
In Scripture ' heavens' can stand for corrupted ruling authorities over mankind; wicked heavens or governments.
I find that God's Day is: to annihilate the wicked out of the land as mentioned at Isaiah 13:9.
God's day to me is a day of salvation - Ezekiel 9:4 - for a great crowd of people will come through the coming great tribulation of Revelation 7:14; Isaiah 26:20.

The periodic table was Not known in the first century, so the 'elements' would be the base elementary things of the world of badness when the wicked are destroyed as if they were consumed - Malachi 4:1; Psalms 92:7.
Who ' remains ' according to Proverbs 2:21-22, but as Jesus' promised the meek will inherit the Earth.
The Earth would have to be here in order to inherit the Earth. An inheritance comes ' after ' someone is gone.
In this case, it is after the wicked are gone by the executional words from Jesus' mouth - Isaiah 11:3-4. Revelation 19:14-16
We are nearing the soon coming ' time of separation ' on Earth as mentioned at Matthew 25:31-33,37.
The humble meek, or figurative sheep-like ones, have fine qualities which those qualities will prove to be incombustible or fire proof when the figurative great tribulation heat is on, before Jesus, as Prince of Peace, ushers in global Peace on Earth among persons of goodwill.

God created Heaven and Earth at the same time. He can make new ones. Dead people don't need Earth and God can give them new bodies. Please, don't quote me anymore. I'm so sick of reading it.