The YECs' Dilemma

[nPeace]

No it is; if it wasn't created then it always was there and your creation myth does begin like most other creation myth; if some parts of the universe already in place or in a different universe altogether. Again, the Veda seems to do a better job at representing a complete creation myth:

1. Then even non-existence was not there, nor existence,
There was no air then, nor the space beyond it.
What covered it? Where was it? In whose keeping?
Was there then cosmic fluid, in depths unfathomed?

2. Then there was neither death nor immortality
nor was there then the torch of night and day.
The One breathed windlessly and self-sustaining.
There was that One then, and there was no other.

3. At first there was only darkness wrapped in darkness.
All this was only unillumined cosmic water.
That One which came to be, enclosed in nothing,
arose at last, born of the power of knowledge.

4. In the beginning desire descended on it -
that was the primal seed, born of the mind.
The sages who have searched their hearts with wisdom
know that which is, is kin to that which is not.

5. And they have stretched their cord across the void,
and know what was above, and what below.
Seminal powers made fertile mighty forces.
Below was strength, and over it was impulse.

6. But, after all, who knows, and who can say
Whence it all came, and how creation happened?
the gods themselves are later than creation,
so who knows truly whence it has arisen?

7. Whence all creation had its origin,
the creator, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,
the creator, who surveys it all from highest heaven,
he knows — or maybe even he does not know.

There you go.
Just as I stated...
6. But, after all, who knows, and who can say
Whence it all came, and how creation happened?
the gods themselves are later than creation,
so who knows truly whence it has arisen?
7. Whence all creation had its origin,
the creator, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,
the creator, who surveys it all from highest heaven,
he knows — or maybe even he does not know.

 

[nPeace]

You didn't address why an omnipotent deity would need six days to do anything, why the story has it taking six days, or why the story includes a day of rest, which is what I was asking about.

I did address the later part.
You didn't read it with careful thought.
I thought I stated it in quiet a simple way.

As for the former. Why are there seven days in a week, rather than eight, or ten,... or sixteen? Who fixed the years and seasons?
Does that answer your question?

My suggestion is that the concept of the work week complete with weekend was added to the creation narrative for a specific, practical purpose. Other creation stories I've seen don't include a timeline. Here are a couple:

"The mighty Marduk took his club and split Tiamat’s body in half. He placed half of her body in the sky and made the heavens (space). He created the moon to guard the heavens, and set it moving back and forth, on endless (time) patrol (energy). With the other half of Tiamat's body he made the land.(matter) "
or

"Odin, Vili, and Vé killed the giant Ymir. The sons of Bor then ... made the world (matter) from him. From his blood they made the sea and the lakes; from his flesh the earth; from his hair the trees; and from his bones the mountains. They made rocks and pebbles from his teeth and jaws and those bones that were broken. Maggots appeared in Ymir's flesh and came to life (life). By the decree of the gods they acquired human understanding and the appearance of men"

Why would an omnipotent deity need six days to build the world, or a day of rest? Doesn't that make him seem less than omnipotent, constrained by limitations needing overcoming and taking time to do it?

This says to me that there was a transformation from a time when able-bodied people worked every day to a time when a centralized temple and an established priesthood needing to be supported by the community arose. Once, no doubt, all able-bodied people worked every day, certainly before settling into cities. And religion was administered by shamans or rabbis wandering with the tribe.

Then came civilization and specialization, and large settlements with a permanent synagogue. People needed to travel to get to the rabbis, who needed tithes to live on - no doubt several hours in each direction. They als needed time for the religious services. This necessitated a regular day off. Somehow, it was agreed upon that this should be every seventh day. Natural cycles like days, months, and years were too short or long. So this new artificial cycle was created.

A new work ethic was necessary to accommodate the need for people to travel to and from a temple and stay for services, and it when once it was unacceptable to take a day off for anything less than illness, it was necessary to make the opposite true: It's a sin to NOT do that. This is no doubt the origin of the timetable and the inclusion of the day of rest in the creation story. If God did it, it's not only moral to take the day off, it's immoral not to. It got a Commandment in the top ten.

Ah. Interesting thoughts you have there. Thanks for sharing.
I suppose the worshipers of Marduk and other false deities came up with their ideas as well, in order to explain a fixed system put their by the true God - the creator.

 

[nPeace]

An omnipotent God could create the universe in 24 seconds, much less 24 hours.

24 seconds, or 24 hours relevant to whom? Time is measured from different perspectives. The creators time is not our time, and our time is not his.
However, if you mean like this... No. That's an illusionist.
Not the creator.

 

[nPeace]

Yes, but she was not the only woman around. She had a mother, for instance. And a grand mother, and so on. By the way, do you think this Eve had a soul while her mother didn’t? Hope not. Imagine her disappointment when looking for mom in heaven.

Ciao

- viole

...and a great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great... grandmother. You get the picture.
Don't understand the last comment. Maybe it's meant for someone else, but me?

 

[epronovost]

So the article is written correctly, and I misunderstood it? Or the article is badly written, and I need some more explanation to understand?
"all lines converge on one woman" means what? One woman out of several women?

Either way, your diagram fits the Biblical diagram. Genesis 9:1
So fight as you might, you can't win. You'll have to make up something.

Where do you see in that verse that only one couple provided all the lineage for Earth's modern population? As far as the biblical narrative is concerned, Noah and his son's separated from one another with their respective spouse and populated the Earth. That's not one couple, that's four with four women. Once again, you twist your own scriptures to make it fit your narrative. Also, the youngest common ancestor to all women lived 150 000 years ago. That's about 146 000 years prior to the flood according to your own book's genealogy which you highly praise. So is the genealogy of your book wrong or is accurate and verifiable scientific findings correct? Make up your mind. Also how do you deal with the masculine genetical genealogy? The diagram I showed you opposes directly the idea of both Adam and Eve and Noah and his family since it implies that the common ancestor of all living women wasn't the first nor alone, only that she had a continuous female lineage.

 

[nPeace]

He's god. He can do anything.

The Bible says no to that. It even says he cannot lie. - Titus 1:2. It also says he cannot be unjust, because he is holy to the superlative degree. Deuteronomy 32:4 ; 2 Chronicles 19:7
So there are things God cannot do, according to the Bible.

 

[nPeace]

Where do you see in that verse that only one couple provided all the lineage for Earth's modern population? As far as the biblical narrative is concerned, Noah and his son's separated from one another with their respective spouse and populated the Earth. That's not one couple, that's four with four women. Once again, you twist your own scriptures to make it fit your narrative. Also, the youngest common ancestor to all women lived 150 000 years ago. That's about 146 000 years prior to the flood according to your own book's genealogy which you highly praise. So is the genealogy of your book wrong or is accurate and verifiable scientific findings correct? Make up your mind. Also how do you deal with the masculine genetical genealogy? The diagram I showed you opposes directly the idea of both Adam and Eve and Noah and his family since it implies that the common ancestor of all living women wasn't the first nor alone, only that she had a continuous female lineage.

How do you read? Does your diagram show only one couple?
Sometimes I feel like I am

You are the one who brought up the "one couple" argument.
I was simply showing you that your clutching at straws failed according to your own belief system.

Regardless of whatever idea you believe, that has nothing to do with the fact that you are still wrong.
Continuous lineage to several ancestors is what your diagram shows. It's what the Bible presents.

What you believe about common ancestry is not the subject of this thread.

 

[nPeace]

No indeed. If the historical accuracy of the bible is what convinces you, you must have a rather, um, idiosyncratic appreciation of the relevant history .

I'm sorry if you only have time to glance at one post.
If you think people are giving one single reason for the reliability of the Bible, I don't know what to say to you.
However, it comes as no surprise when someone who rejects and discredits the Bible have no basis for believing it.
Jesus and his followers explained where blindness stems.

 

[firedragon]

So you didn't get it the last time. Then a repeat won't help. You'll likely roll back again some time down the line.

Last time? I dont know what last time you are talking about. This was my first interaction in this thread.

Anyway, since you dont have an answer but only an ad hominem attempts, I will leave this conversation.

 

[epronovost]

How do you read? Does your diagram show only one couple?

No it doesn't. It shows about height couples for illustrative purpose only if one women having a continuous line of female descendant up to today; all the others being interrupted for a reason or another (like having only surviving sons/grand-sons afterward for example). Humanity was never populated by a single couple, though its true that one woman who lived around 150 000 years ago is the common ancestor of all living women.

Continuous lineage to several ancestors is what your diagram shows. It's what the Bible presents.

No, the Bible presents all humans being born out of a single couples which have two sons. Then a giant apocalypse kills all human, about 4000 years ago except 8 people, only six of which were still young enough to have children themselves. That's absolutely not what the genetic, fossil or historical records show.

These show that humanity starts from a small population of hominids in Africa around 200 000 years ago, populate that continent and start to spread on others around 75 000 years ago to reach all major landmass on the planet around 60 000 years later. It also seems to show a genetical gullet around 70 000 years ago, human population was severely reduced by a natural disaster (most commonly mentioned suspect would be the explosion of a super-volcano in Indonesia which would have caused a long period of volcanic winter which would have severely impeded the ability of humans to gather food).

 

[nPeace]

Last time? I dont know what last time you are talking about. This was my first interaction in this thread.

Anyway, since you dont have an answer but only an ad hominem attempts, I will leave this conversation.

You raised this in another thread where you were given an answer to which you ceased objecting. You raised it fresh again here.
Am I the only one who remembers interactions or conversations on these forums?

 

[nPeace]

No it doesn't. It shows about height couples for illustrative purpose only if one women having a continuous line of female descendant up to today; all the others being interrupted for a reason or another (like having only surviving sons/grand-sons afterward for example). Humanity was never populated by a single couple, though its true that one woman who lived around 150 000 years ago is the common ancestor of all living women.



No, the Bible presents all humans being born out of a single couples which have two sons. Then a giant apocalypse kills all human, about 4000 years ago except 8 people, only six of which were still young enough to have children themselves. That's absolutely not what the genetic, fossil or historical records show.

These show that humanity starts from a small population of hominids in Africa around 200 000 years ago, populate that continent and start to spread on others around 75 000 years ago to reach all major landmass on the planet around 60 000 years later. It also seems to show a genetical gullet around 70 000 years ago, human population was severely reduced by a natural disaster (most commonly mentioned suspect would be the explosion of a super-volcano in Indonesia which would have caused a long period of volcanic winter which would have severely impeded the ability of humans to gather food).

Not that I don't appreciate hearing what you believe, but again, what you believe about common ancestry is not the subject of this thread.
You can try the Creation/Evolution forum, or Science/Religion forums for that.

 

[firedragon]

You raised this in another thread where you were given an answer to which you ceased objecting. You raised it fresh again here.
Am I the only one who remembers interactions or conversations on these forums?

nPeace. I dont know about being only one or part of a whole, but I cant remember. Also, sometimes I cease discussion because there is no point.

In my context, I have never got a direct answer for this unless its some huge, circumventing, allegorical or something similar, apologetic that I cannot accept.

 

[epronovost]

Not that I don't appreciate hearing what you believe, but again, what you believe about common ancestry is not the subject of this thread.
You can try the Creation/Evolution forum, or Science/Religion forums for that.

This is a thread about how the YEC of the Christian variety get around the fact that biology, physics, astrophysics, astronomy, engineering, chemistry, climatology, history and anthropology all shows the narrative of the Bible as seen by YEC to be basically completely false. If you can't deal with facts, verifiable evidences or even the most basic of mathematics for demographical growth, then the answer to the OP is that you are dealing with those contradiction by being willfully extremely ignorant.

 

[nPeace]

nPeace. I dont know about being only one or part of a whole, but I cant remember. Also, sometimes I cease discussion because there is no point.

In my context, I have never got a direct answer for this unless its some huge, circumventing, allegorical or something similar, apologetic that I cannot accept.

You told me these words before. "You don't remember."
I would not ask you your age. It happens to young ones too.
It was a conversation where your response was to accept the answer upon understanding. That was it.

 

[nPeace]

This is a thread about how the YEC of the Christian variety get around the fact that biology, physics, astrophysics, astronomy, engineering, chemistry, climatology, history and anthropology all shows the narrative of the Bible as seen by YEC to be basically completely false. If you can't deal with facts, verifiable evidences or even the most basic of mathematics for demographical growth, then the answer to the OP is that you are dealing with those contradiction by being willfully extremely ignorant.

 

[firedragon]

You told me these words before. "You don't remember."
I would not ask you your age. It happens to young ones too.
It was a conversation where your response was to accept the answer upon understanding. That was it.

I remember a conversation on this matter, but I dont remember who. I dont generally look at the avatar name unless there is a purpose for it.

You can call me what ever you like if you enjoy it. Everyone needs a little joy in life.

Cheers.

 

[nPeace]

I remember a conversation on this matter, but I dont remember who. I dont generally look at the avatar name unless there is a purpose for it.

You can call me what ever you like if you enjoy it. Everyone needs a little joy in life.

Cheers.

Huh? I didn't call you anything!!! Anyway. You're right. Joy in life is a sure need.

 

[KWED]

The Bible says no to that. It even says he cannot lie. - Titus 1:2. It also says he cannot be unjust, because he is holy to the superlative degree. Deuteronomy 32:4 ; 2 Chronicles 19:7
So there are things God cannot do, according to the Bible.

Maybe god was lying when he said he can't lie. And if he can lie, then we must treat everything he says with a degree of scepticism.

 

[viole]

...and a great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great... grandmother. You get the picture.
Don't understand the last comment. Maybe it's meant for someone else, but me?

So, did all those mothers have a soul? If yes, what is so special about what you call "Eve"?

Ciao

- viole