Genesis can be used liberally and allegorically with the geological timescale without contradiction. You may not think this is true, but it is.
Genesis can be used liberally and allegorically with the geological timescale without contradiction.
Genesis can be used liberally and allegorically with the geological timescale without contradiction. You may not think this is true, but it is.
Substantiate your claims
Dear opponents,
I can literally look at this and I can equate it to an allegorical Genesis. Reminder that not even the ancients thought it was actually 7 days in which God made the Universe.
>5 eras
>7 days
You are moronic
>You are moronic
However, my dear opponent, if I may interject for a moment on this. *ahem* Didn't God have an intermission at around the '6th Day' of Creation? Yes He did. Furthermore, didn't he rest and complete everything by the 7th? This means that there was indeed 5 'days' of actual creation, or evolution as you would so call it, taking place.
Within these sequence of 'days', by the acts of God on each 'day', once again you see a striking similarity between the geological timescale and Genesis.
Where are the 2 missing eras? Where's the magic fruit? Where's the talking snake? Where's the fire sword? Where's the floating zoo? Where's the unique language? Where's any of that?
In terms of eras of creation/evolution it is exactly how it should be see
>5 is totally equal to 7 guys praise christ ayy man
If you read the text it says God creates the world in actually 5 days instead of 7 with and 6 and 7 being resting periods. But of course you DON'T read atleast Genesis and absolutely do not care for it because you're far too skeptical for your own good.
Let me explain further since you're far too skeptical up your own ass:
We know from the geological timescale that Earth was a waterworld on 'Day 1' hence why here
it starts out as one
'Day 2, 3, and 4' explain the evolution of plants and aquatic wildlife towards the end of 'Day 4' where dinosaurs enter the fray. Since we know birds are a direct descendant of dinosaurs we can confidently say that Day 4 is more about the Jurassic to the Cretaceous periods.
Then finally we get to Day 5, the Tertiary and Quaternary, or the Holocene which is in Man's recent memory. This includes the larger mammals and Man Himself.
Once again, if you read after all of this, God actually finishes on 'Day 6' or period of time to review His work and then rests on the 7th.
>it says God creates the world in actually 5 days instead of 7 with and 6 and 7 being resting periods
American literacy.
That's what it says, moron
No. See
There's nothing else after, it's just God reviewing His work on the 6th and then resting on the 7th.
So as I was saying there's only 5 periods of time where creation, or evolution as skeptics would call it, is taking place.
>31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
>Genesis 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
>2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
>2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
This bastardizes both the scientific and the Biblical accounts. I never understood why some people decide to interpret Genesis allegorically but then choose this weird unfitting explanation instead of reading it as an allegory for God's relationship with his creation.
Most of it is allegorical with only some books being actual history like Chronicles, for example.
Someone can believe that
1. Adam and Eve were a literal couple
2. They were made to be immortal and free of disease
3. Eve was created directly from Adam
4. Adam and Eve got tricked by Satan
5. They lost their immortality and disease free status
while believing days are not literal or that there were others outside of the garden God didn't really consider humans (no rational souls).
Not saying this is my belief but someone can believe this.
As I was saying, these books can be taken allegorically and one could interpret it in many different ways. The churches themselves can't even make up their own minds on the text so in my opinion, it's fair game for any individual to interpret it how they want. And for all you and I know, they could be right, especially if it's close to our modern understandings like my biblical epoch theory of Genesis.
The problem is the word yom. It can mean any time period so the word yom causes tons of problems in interpretations.
Not what I'm arguing against. All I'm saying is that if you take the days to be allegories for geological epochs or something like that (
), your timeline won't fit.
Explain how it fails
What do you think about a timeline where Adam and Eve were some number of thousands of years back and the world is billions of years back?
>I can literally look at this and I can equate it to an allegorical Genesis
So? I can do the same with a Jackson Pollock painting or a train schedule or basically anything. It's not that hard.
It would be really impressive if someone could've come up with a timeline like this just by interpreting the Bible before any of it was discovered scientifically. Of course they couldn't because none of this is suggested by the text, so you're left struggling to fit a mythology shaped peg into a science shaped hole.
ok but why would you want to go through all the effort of the mental gymnastics required to square every single bilbe verse with every other bible verse and with all scientific fact? if you try not believing in god, you will realize that nothing changes and there is no point in torturing yourself anymore.
Not him but Eden was about sex and orgasms. Satan taught Eve how to orgasm and have sex with Adam and Adam orgasmed and have sex with Eve. God was angry that they had attempted to procreate or be as gods so God kicked them out of the garden. Eve had a child after this.
>From the late 17th century onward, educated men increasingly accepted the idea of God as watchmaker. Religion and science did not come into serious conflict until "The Origin of Species" was published almost 200 years later.[3] During the Enlightenment, when reason was in vogue, it became popular to embrace deism which basically reduced God's role in the universe to a relative minimum and which originated in England in around the mid-17th century.[98]
Genesis is probably the richest story I know of in terms of its metaphorical capacity. It can withstand seemingly endless allegorizations. I am inclined to take it more on the literal side nowadays, but one of my favorite interpretations is given by Evan Eisenberg in "The Ecology of Eden."
He maps it onto Darwinian human evolution. The cause of human intellect is the unusually large cranium proportional to the body. This also makes childbirth uniquely painful for human mothers. Hence to eat from the tree of knowledge was to gain human intelligence, banishing us from the natural/animal world (the garden) and having punishment of painful childbirth and agricultural labor.
It's not about evolution. It's about how sex was the original sin and God never wanted humans having sex.
This is just one interpretation I found neat anon. I don't adhere to Darwin's theory myself, and consider this an incorrect interpretation. It is also very interesting. That's all.
Can you explain your understanding of Genesis? Why do you think it was about a ban on sex? You have the floor I am curious.
Because reproducing was becoming as gods since you could create new human beings other than God creating them. Two had to tango, otherwise why would God only wait for Adam to taste it in order to banish them?
Interesting eisegesis. That raises the question, what is the snake before and after his curse, allegorically speaking?
That is a great question, I cannot remember what he said the snake was, if he said it was anything.
But Genesis is real history, so in that way you deny reality. At that point you just apply allegory arbitrarily and nothing has a meaning anymore.
Genesis by itself, is not real history. So sorry my evangelist friend..
But you literally belived that it was real history a couple hundred years ago.
Jesus himself mentioned Genesis characters as real history.
Do you believe in the talking snake?
It didn't exist but it's symbolism for something real. Next question.
Why do Christians have to believe in the Torah in order for Jesus to really be YHWH? Have you ever considered that the book was written by Iron Age israelites and only catches a glimpse of the reality? Even Paul's writings are just midrash.
Without the Torah you can't have the New Testament.
The New Testament is just a collection of books, letters, and sermons that the Church decided was useful for being read in liturgies. The criteria for determining their placement in the canon was the best that the bishops could do for their time, but I think Christians often make the mistake of mistaking the symbol for the real. They're just books. They probably are talking about something real, but they are written by men and thus subject to error. When Paul was writing about demonstrating the power of God, did he do it by using books? No, of course not! In fact, he says that it's not according to wisdom that the Gospel is validated.
Trying to bend over backwards to make everything in genesis line up completely with current scientific understanding is a pointless red herring. It detracts from the main points of the Bible: that God loves you and gave his only begotten son to rescue humanity from its own sin. Oh hurr fricking durr some shit in genesis doesn’t make sense! Who the frick cares. There’s a lot of shit in the Bible and about God we simply cannot understand. That’s just the way we are as finite beings. Salvation and Christianity itself doesn’t rest on whether every sentence of genesis completely makes sense with current science. God is everything anyway and any scientific discoveries that are 100% certain are completely attributable to God.
Rescue humanity from sin that was brought on by...their ancestors allegorically eating an metaphorical apple after being deceived by an allusional talking snake? Also, why does the Old Testament get the 'it's just allegories about evolution bro, it's not literal' and not the New Testament?
Even after the fall, whatever it was exactly, humans can still live without sin: see Jesus (who was fully man and lived a sinless life). But we’re dumb morons who do dumb moronic shit constantly and none of us are sinless. It doesn’t start and end with the fall. You’re being a dumb butthole by implying that.
The New Testament is also stuffed with allegories. There are things Jesus does that aren’t strictly literal but allegorical and metaphorical. Talking about an immensely complicated subject like the creation of the universe and a guy walking around doing stuff are completely different subjects. It’s moronic to think these very different situations might be communicated exactly the same way.
Amen. The degree to which the Bible accords with scientific consensus is one of the most beautiful and inspiring miracles man can bear witness to.
You sound like a muslim
>If you reinterpret these old verses in light of new information, they conform!
WOOOOOOOWWWWW
There is absolutely nobody in this thread who has any argument whatsoever against the allegorical parallel of our geological timescale and Genesis. My opponents are either skeptics far up into their own ass or evangelists who take this shit literally.
I cba to put the effort into it because you'll just say the discrepancies don't matter.
>There is absolutely nobody in this thread who has any argument whatsoever against the allegorical parallel of our geological timescale and Genesis.
The order is also incorrect. What now?
The order is not incorrect..
It's trivially incorrect even due to ordering of things like land vegetation or the sun, moon and stars, but even disregarding that the cope regarding dinosaurs as birds doesn't fit due to the early emergence of things like Tritylodontidae on the mammalian side. It's got so many holes in it that it would take too long to list them all.
Excuse me.. but I have to ask as a counter-riposte, explain Genesis 1:1-5, and then we can proceed onto your other objections. Thanks.
Magic israelite creates day and night before the sun and moon. Another way to prove Genesis is moronic even with geologic timescales.
>Magic israelite creates day and night before the sun and moon.
No no my skeptic friend! Wrong wrong wrong! We're not taking this literally, remember? We're taking this allegorically. What is the light that is causing day and night? It doesn't specify. And the only thing that could cause these things are the sun and the moon.
>What is the light that is causing day and night?
The thing he doesn't create until day 4. Will a Christian ever not be a nobrainer to debate?
There is already a light, a Day and a Night in Genesis 1:1-5, I would like an explanation as to what that is, thankyou Anon.
Ok, fine, your other objections: land vegetation after primitive fish and plants in general. The reason why these organisms aren't listed before is because first of all these fish aren't developed yet and they're still in their primordial stage. You see whales and all living things evolved in the Mesozoic and Cenozoic. As for the plants it lists 'grasses' in combination with seed-bearing plants and this enters into the more developed phases of creatures.
>umm actually water creatures doesn't mean primitive fish, it means whales
>umm birds doesn't mean birds, it means dinosaurs who couldn't even fly
>umm land animals doesn't mean land animals, it means mammals (who were around before birds)
>also furry ancestors of mammals who were around even before non-flying dinosaurs also don't count because they laid eggs or delivered young kinda like marsupials
kek
The fact is that 'Day 4' describes birds and sea creatures in their evolutionary totality. Mammals were still evolving.
You can't even answer why there's a Day and a Night sufficiently by allegorical standards in Genesis 1:1-5.
>You can't even answer why there's a Day and a Night sufficiently by allegorical standards in Genesis 1:1-5.
Iron-age morons didn't know the sun created light day. That's an argument AGAINST the Bible having any kind of superhuman wisdom in it.
>Iron-age morons didn't know the sun created light day.
Source?
Genesis 1.
literally not an argument
>what's your source?
>*gives source*
>err..... t-that's n-not an a-argument
This is why you will never win a single debate in your life.
And you will never be a woman in your life.
I accept your concession.
i think he meant moonlight
>The fact is that 'Day 4' describes birds and sea creatures in their evolutionary totality.
Wtf? Bird and fishes are day 5 and land creatures are day 6.
And you did absolutely nothing to address that there were furry mammalian ancestors even before non-flying dinosaurs.
>Wtf? Bird and fishes are day 5 and land creatures are day 6.
Read it again, birds and fishes are on 'Day 4', terrestrial mammals are on 'Day 5'.
>And you did absolutely nothing to address that there were furry mammalian ancestors even before non-flying dinosaurs.
I did, it goes by the dominant species in each epoch or 'day' in their evolutionary totality. As I said before, the epoch of 'Day 4' lists the dinosaurs. Paleontologists have found that almost all dinosaurs were avianlike in nature.
>Read it again, birds and fishes are on 'Day 4', terrestrial mammals are on 'Day 5'.
I literally have it open in front of me.
>20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
>I did, it goes by the dominant species in each epoch or 'day' in their evolutionary totality.
Synapsids (mammal ancestors) were dominant before dinosaurs (bird ancestors).
>As I said before, the epoch of 'Day 4' lists the dinosaurs. Paleontologists have found that almost all dinosaurs were avianlike in nature.
Yes and they evolved from reptiles. Land animals that would fit under Day 5. Day 5 says nothing about mammals specifically.
However were they actually reptiles in their evolutionary totality? No they were not.. they were amphibians and proto-reptiles, which ties into the sea creature variable of 'Day 4'.
Reptiles are an older clade than dinosaurs.
These were proto-reptiles and amphibians.
No, they were actual reptiles. On the other hand, dinosaurs weren't actual birds - you might call them "proto-birds".
>However were they actually reptiles in their evolutionary totality? No they were not..
By the Permian? Yes they were. You're arbitarily saying they're "proto-reptiles" when they were simply reptiles.
Reptiles predate dinosaurs and definitely birds proper. This is a simple fact anon.
Also dinosaurs and mammals evolved around the same time. Mammals just did not become dominant until dinosaurs were gone from the picture and were religated to be primarily little rat guys scrounging around the forest floor.
So uuuhhh you're not a paleontologist. Moving on I am correct in all of this.
Ah so you're just pretending to be moronic, gotcha.
Excuse my "paleontologist" friend, you dropped this
>The period immediately before the age of the dinosaurs was dominated by amphibians during the Permian to Siluarian Periods. This was the period of transition of some species living exclusively in the water (fish, etc.) or exclusively on land (reptiles, insects, etc.)
'Day 4' is the transition of these sea creatures (including amphibians) and birds (including dinosaurs) to more terrestrial creatures in 'Day 5'.
that says dominated by amphibians, not that there were no reptiles.
>The origin of the reptiles lies about 310–320 million years ago, in the steaming swamps of the late Carboniferous period, when the first reptiles evolved from advanced reptiliomorphs.[20][failed verification]
>The oldest known animal that may have been an amniote is Casineria (though it may have been a temnospondyl).[34][35][36] A series of footprints from the fossil strata of Nova Scotia dated to 315 Ma show typical reptilian toes and imprints of scales.[37] These tracks are attributed to Hylonomus, the oldest unquestionable reptile known.[38] It was a small, lizard-like animal, about 20 to 30 centimetres (7.9 to 11.8 in) long, with numerous sharp teeth indicating an insectivorous diet.[39] Other examples include Westlothiana (for the moment considered a reptiliomorph rather than a true amniote)[40] and Paleothyris, both of similar build and presumably similar habit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptile#Evolutionary_history
Dinosaurs are a step between reptiles and later birds. They did not predate reptiles.
There were reptiles sure, but it wasn't DOMINATED by reptiles, that would come later.
>synapsids (ancestors of mammals).
Ok.. and they weren't mammals but ancestors of. Your point being?
As for the Devonian period.. as I had said before life was just beginning to populate the Earth and there was a diversity of not only primordial fish but invertebrates. To say that any one species dominated another during this time period is fallacious. There was a huge mixture of species in the seas at that point who were not fully evolved.
>Ok.. and they weren't mammals but ancestors of. Your point being?
Ok, dinosaurs aren't birds but the ancestors of birds. Your point being?
>As for the Devonian period.. as I had said before life was just beginning to populate the Earth and there was a diversity of not only primordial fish but invertebrates. To say that any one species dominated another during this time period is fallacious.
You can say things like that about any period. However, there simply isn't any other period when fish were more dominant.
Ok so uhmmm this doesn't necessarily defeat my argument here. My argument states the following, that 'Day 4' was an epoch, a transition from the Permian to the Cretaceous. Sea creatures can mean amphibians, it can mean reptiles, it can mean evolved fishes, sea mammals like whales, etc. Birds can mean dinosaurs, such creatures descendant of, which you acknowledged were avian in their biology. I don't really understand your counterargument here.
>You can say things like that about any period. However, there simply isn't any other period when fish were more dominant.
No no, this is simply not true. The Devonian epoch or the Waterworld stage 'Day 1' in Genesis was NOT dominated by only these primordial fish who were by the way not EXACTLY fish but primordial fish. You have to contend with the fact that it was a mixture of sea species including invertebrates that were only beginning to evolve into their more modern forms on 'Day 4'.
>Sea creatures can mean amphibians, it can mean reptiles, it can mean evolved fishes, sea mammals like whales, etc. Birds can mean dinosaurs, such creatures descendant of, which you acknowledged were avian in their biology
You're just admitting that you're stretching the meaning of words like "fish", "birds" and "land creatures" so far and so inconsistently that you could make them fit absolutely any order of creation.
>The Devonian epoch or the Waterworld stage 'Day 1' in Genesis was NOT dominated by only these primordial fish who were by the way not EXACTLY fish but primordial fish.
The Devonian isn't a water world day 1 scenario. It's an era billions of years after the water world of the Archean (and perhaps the Hadean). It's also an era dominated by fish who rose to prominence after the earlier periods which were dominated by other life (like mollusks).
>You're just admitting that you're stretching the meaning of words like "fish", "birds" and "land creatures" so far and so inconsistently that you could make them fit absolutely any order of creation.
No I'm not:
Amphibians can be sea creatures
Reptiles can be sea creatures
Mammals can be sea creatures
Dinosaurs can be sea creatures
Dinosaurs can also be birds
Regardless there was a water world and this is described in Genesis as 'Days 1 and 2', which were the epochs of time when Earth and life itself was still developing.
>Amphibians can be sea creatures
>Reptiles can be sea creatures
>Mammals can be sea creatures
>Dinosaurs can be sea creatures
>Dinosaurs can also be birds
Ok then. Fishes were not complete until whales were around, which was deep into the dominance of the mammals. Tough luck lol.
>Regardless there was a water world
Yeah and that was in the Hadean/Archean, not in the Devonian.
anon you've completely twisted both evolutionary history and Genesis 1 in knots in order to make them fit together.
It is far simpler to just say that Genesis 1's purpose is not to tell you what literally happened when the Universe and Earth were created.
For God's sake, the Sun, Moon, and stars are not created until Day 4.
Dry land and plants are on Day 3.
This is poetry demonstrating God's power over the natural world and establishing order over it. It is not literal history.
I'm not saying it's literal history either, if I did, I'd be an evangelist taking it word for word.
that's exactly what you're doing though trying to make it align with evolutionary history.
No, if I did, I'd be a creationist.
You had, basically, a waterworld filled with insignificant primitive sea life, among which was not dominant in any 1 species, till the Carboniferous. Everything was still evolving.
Fish were dominant in the Devonian tho. And everything always evolves, that's not an argument.
Fish were not dominant in the Devonian this is a lie + you're not a paleontologist + you don't have sources + you're not listening to me
Anon fishes were so dominant in the Devonian that it's literally called "The Age of the Fishes" lol.
>The Devonian Period occurred from 419.2 million to 358.9 million years ago. It was the fourth period of the Paleozoic Era. It was preceded by the Silurian Period and followed by the Carboniferous Period. It is often known as the "Age of Fishes," although significant events also happened in the evolution of plants, the first insects and other animals.
'Age of Fishes' is a misnomer for this period of time. This period of time was mostly a waterworld dominated by a diversity of primordial species. Arguably the 'fish' in this epoch were not even fish but very, very distant ancestors.
If you're just going to plug your ears and lie, I don't see any point in continuing. It's amazing how the supposedly reasonable interpretation of Genesis leads to so much mental gymnastics.
Anyway, the Genesis account is mainly about the evolution of Man and how other creatures lead up to Man's existence. The Devonian period is so far away in the geological timescale with creatures that were beginning to evolve that it might as well be.. not listed. In other words, irrelevant to the story of Man, who comes far far later.
>unlike t-rex, fish are irrelevant to the story of man
Kek the gift that keeps on giving.
Those weren't fish tho, those were proto-fish, Anon..
They were fish dumbass. The Devonian was filled with fish.
Not him btw
>picrel is not a fish
>t-rex is a bird tho
You tried.
"Fish" isn't a taxonomic or genealogical word but rather a morphogenic word. Yes, humans evolved from "fish" (by which we mean "organisms that look a certain way") even though not all fish are directly related to us in any meaningful way.
Fish is literally a taxonomic, genetic category. It is an entire genetic branch of the tree of life on earth.
No, it is not. "Fish" evolved multiple times from different ancestral organisms.
Lmao we can literally genetically test Devonian forms because coelacanths are still around, you poor sod.
They are literally their own genetic branch. Same goes for amphibians, reptiles, mammals and birds. That’s why a dolphin or a plesiosaur is not a fish even though they look like fish.
Fish are just water dwelling gill-bearing anamniotic animals within vertebra, they don't share a common ancestor that isn't also shared by organisms outside of this description. It's paraphyletic.
Besides dinosaurs are much closer in the timescale to uhmmm humanity's emergence, which is why they're listed.
The fish in the Devonian are direct ancestors of humans. T-Rex literally has less to do with human evolution than fish in the Devonian.
>The fish in the Devonian are direct ancestors of humans
nope, fish don't shapeshift into people.
You have fish genes in every cell of your body right now.
source?
Proto-fish do not matter, ok??
They’re literally fish, not “proto-fish”
Shutup shutup shutup, Man is terrestrial, and so when it comes to the story of Man which is arguably the central theme of Genesis then the Devonian period should rightfully receive less relevance in the divinely inspired passages of Genesis. It doesn't matter.
>this
>picrel is not a fish
>t-rex is a bird tho
You tried. is not a fish
>picrel are birds
Reminder that this is supposed to be the most rational defense of the book of Genesis.
Dinosaurs are closely related to birds tho and were by the way terrestrial.
>dinosaurs are closely related to birds
>fish aren't closely related to fish
It's over. We can close the churches, Christianity is done.
400,000,000 years is a long time for evolutionary changes Anon..
Alright, name five evolutionary changes which make them not fish.
These things are fishlike they aren't fish as we know them yet, god shutup moron
But these
are not birdlike, they are birds as we know them already! It makes perfect sense.
were the birds trannies too?
But they are birdlike they have closer ties to modern birds than these primordial organisms to modern fish. The distance of evolutionary history that we are comparing is so very different.
>200 million years and drastic changes in physiology? yeah that's literally modern birds bro
>400 million years and few changes? nooooo stop the count!
Is this the rational faith I've heard so much about?
Yes 200 million years is closer than 400. What of it?
>I know specifically the evolutionary changes bro
No you don't, you're not a paleontologist you're only saying this out of your beliefs.
Why is 200 million years the cutoff? I know why, you arbitrarily chose it because you can't make it work otherwise lol.
I can list you some changes from dinos to birds (even Cretaceous dinos if you want). You can't do the same for Devonian fishes.
Stfu athy, birds are very close descendants to dinosaurs, Devonian creatures are not to fish. I don't need to get into this.
>Age of Fishes' is a misnomer for this period of time
Did you read the text you copy and pasted? The Devonian was filled with fish. If any age is the fish age it’s that one.
You Christians need to get better at accepting facts you don’t like.
>although significant events also happened in the evolution of plants, the first insects and other animals.
It shouldn't be called the 'Age of Fish'
Anon you’re missing the point here, it was filled with fish and it’s often called the age of fish because of the explosion of fish species and their dominance of the planet. It says it’s called the age of fish but so dumb people don’t get confused and think it was only fish, they add that to the end. It would be like calling the Mesozoic the age of dinosaurs or reptiles. Completely reasonable even though insects and plants were evolving and existing like they always do.
This
Doesn't
Matter
Why not?
Because I said so now shutup, homosexual
If that's how you define which animals are dominant in a given period, then no animals have ever been dominant during any period.
There is no evolution. It's a faulty concept.
I wonder where you get your quotes from, pleb. The Permian was dominated by synapsids (ancestors of mammals).
You can get back to answering
if you have the time btw, or you can concede if you like.
Also it also occurs to me now that you said there weren't fishes before land plants because there weren't whales, hut then you argue mammals only came after birds and fishes lmao. This is probably the most hilarious thing to come out of this.
I said there WERE fishlike creatures before land plants but that they didn't reach their evolutionary totality until 'Day 4'. Alot of these organisms were still in their early phases in the seas. I said mammals, in their evolutionary totality as in the dominant species, came after birds and fishes.
Are whales fish or mammals? Truly the question for the ages.
Doesn't matter actually and this is also not an argument.
>fish weren't "evolutionarily complete" before whales (mammals) were around
>however, birds were evolutionarily complete before birds were around
I picking love Christians.
When I say 'evolutionarily complete' I mean to say they were completed and were dominant among the globe before an asteroid hit and then subsequently the survivors, who were much smaller, came after. Yes they had reached their totality before the Chixculub impactor.
Then the fish were dominant before land vegetation (which most certainly wasn't dominant before them).
>(which most certainly wasn't dominant before them).
I know which is why they aren't listed before the vegetation of 'Day 2'. They were just evolving, from their primordial forms.
Why would fish, who were dominant BEFORE land vegetation, be listed AFTER land vegetation if the order of listing denotes the order of dominance?
Nothing. The Bible is just wrong.
Why should I do that? I can accept whatever cope you cook up for Genesis 1 for the sake of the conversation and then we can proceed to my objections.
Answer why Genesis 1:1-5 is there then I'll answer your other objections. Do it now.
I don't care. I already told you that I accept your explanation, whatever it is, for the sake of the conversation. Let's proceed to my objections.
It's a weird Frankenstein timeline that accepts a certain kind of scientific evidence for pre-human timelines but then rejects it for human ones.
>It's a weird Frankenstein timeline that accepts a certain kind of scientific evidence for pre-human timelines but then rejects it for human ones.
In Christianity, anyone without a rational soul isn't human.
The concept of a "rational soul" is ill defined anyway. We have archeological evidence of behavioral modernity tens of thousands of years ago.
The concept of humans being human only with a rational soul is Greek pagan nonsense. It crept its way into the faith, but was never of it to begin with.
Only for a materialist. A rational soul allows us to reason, know right and wrong, create, go to heaven, and be in God's image. Animals aren't God imagers.
Do moronic people have rational souls?
Yes because the brain material is disturbed not the inner soul. Soul =/= body.
Ah yes, the body is an antenna. Better not pass through tunnels might frick up the signal
it literally is. The demons transmit electric currents through the air to influence people. Certain radio technologies can do the same with transmitting signals that are perceived as sounds by individuals subjected to it.
Can the devil hear your thoughts then?
No, but they can hear your words and the things you write, and can share this as they please with others. This act is called being a "familiar spirit", as they can assume your physical form when doing this too.
How do you know this?
>1 Samuel 28: 7~ 14 Then said Saul unto his servants, Seek me a woman that hath a familiar spirit, that I may go to her, and enquire of her. And his servants said to him, Behold, there is a woman that hath a familiar spirit at Endor. And Saul disguised himself, and put on other raiment, and he went, and two men with him, and they came to the woman by night: and he said, I pray thee, divine unto me by the familiar spirit, and bring me him up, whom I shall name unto thee. And the woman said unto him, Behold, thou knowest what Saul hath done, how he hath cut off those that have familiar spirits, and the wizards, out of the land: wherefore then layest thou a snare for my life, to cause me to die? And Saul sware to her by the LORD, saying, As the LORD liveth, there shall no punishment happen to thee for this thing. Then said the woman, Whom shall I bring up unto thee? And he said, Bring me up Samuel. And when the woman saw Samuel, she cried with a loud voice: and the woman spake to Saul, saying, Why hast thou deceived me? for thou art Saul. And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth. And he said unto her, What form is he of? And she said, An old man cometh up; and he is covered with a mantle. And Saul perceived that it was Samuel, and he stooped with his face to the ground, and bowed himself.
The familiar spirit takes the form of Samuel, when asked to present information from Samuel to Saul. But it's not actually Samuel, as he is dead when this occurred, which is the key observation.
Okay, so it's your own theology, gotcha. Ignoring your posts from now on.
It's historical that things of that nature occurred. To disagree with phenomena that is reported and true is to be detached from reality.
To be detached from reality is to take the Book of Samuel as serious history.
Okay satan.
Jesus is Lord.
>Matthew 7:22~23 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
So if I don't believe the propaganda of ancient Judahites I'm going to hell because?
>Checks scriptures
>"Ye that work iniquity"
>In Greek is "workers of lawlessness"
I didn't follow the Torah?
What does believing in a book have to do with the Law of Moses?
It's clear you believe things arbitrarily. You pick and choose based on your feelings, not on facts.
No, I just treat the spiritual reality of this world as the spiritual reality of this world and I use the books as guides, but I do not treat them as the real thing itself. That is idolatry and it can lead the faithful to believe things that are not true about God, to their own destruction.
So let's do something very simple. You want to base your theology, and because you conclude it is correct then surely me too, on these books, tell me then how the story of the elohim of Samuel got into the First Book of Samuel.
Who is the author and what is the chain of narrators? Was it gathered from an older document and put into the text? Give me an answer. How do we know about an encounter that happened with one dead man and two living persons, one of whom is Saul and died before the coronation of King David and the other the witch of Endor, both of whom were implicated in a crime worthy of death according to the Law, which is necromancy? Would Saul have admitted this to his court? Was the writer of Samuel a prophet who could see into the past?
Every thought is naked in the spirit world. If you're in your dreams and you think of a horse, you will actually see the horse. The spirit world is like this, every thought and desire is manifested and seen on the outside and visible to any spirit around you. They can enter your dreams and interact with you there, they can enter your memories and sort through them and play them like a video.
Alzheimer's patients gaining lucidity when dying and blind people gaining sight in an nde proves this.
Yours is materialist/atheist nonsense. The Greeks were right.
So how do you know for certain animals don't have rational souls? If the hardware doesn't count, you have no way of knowing.
>inb4 well they just don't cause the bible says so
Actually...
>Surely the fate of human beings is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; humans have no advantage over animals. Everything is meaningless.
Like I said, Greek nonsense.
>plants before the sun and moon
American """education"""
israelite here, you guys are out of your minds. The sages wrote the stories as polemics against the Babylonians.
Hello /misc/
Implicit in the Enuma Elish and the New Year and Akitu rituals is the Babylonian explanation for why their god Marduk is the head of the pantheon. In the Persian Period, israelites living in Babylonia would have felt a similar need, to explain how it is that YHWH, the god of their small province, was the true King of the Universe.
The Judeans likely encountered the imagery of divine kingship from the yearly enthroning of Marduk, and applied it to their depiction of their own deity. We can still hear echoes of the Enuma Elish when we declare God’s preeminence as Lord from the world’s very beginnings, in the popular hymn Adon Olam:
אֲדוֹן עוֹלָם אֲשֶׁר מָלַךְ - Eternal master, who reigned supreme
בְּטֶרֶם כָּל יְצִיר נִבְרָא - Before any materiality was created
לְעֵת נַעֲשָׂה בְחֶפְצוֹ כֹּל - When all was completed according to his will
אֲזַי מֶלֶךְ שְׁמוֹ נִקְרָא - Then his name was proclaimed as “King.”
Given the cultural and geographic proximity of exilic israeli and Babylonians, it is not surprising that, in keeping with the Babylonian festivals’ themes, YHWH’s kingship became a major theme of Rosh Hashanah, the israeli New Year festival. It is still a core part of its liturgy, reflected in the malchiyot, "kingship”, prayer, and the oft repeated line:
הַיּוֹם הֲרַת עוֹלָם; הַיּוֹם יַעֲמִיד בַּמִּשְׁפָּט כָּל יְצוּרֵי עוֹלָם. This is the day the world was born; this is the day (God) will judge all of the world’s creatures.
Over time, the israeli new year migrated back from the Babylonian Nisan to the West Semitic Tishrei, as reflected already in the Torah’s muted description of a festival on the first of the seventh month (Lev 23:24, Num 29:1). Even with the new date, the New Year celebration brought with it the kingship theme so prominent in Enuma Elish and the spring New Year at Babylon
another garbage thread by christian
only judaized protestants take the old testament literally, true christians understand those were works collected by humans to provide context for the coming of the messiah, now we accept him and that's all there is to it, it fullfilled it's purpouse.
Every Christian scholar up to the Enlightenment that attempted a universal history of the world treated the events of the Old Testament as 100% factual.
Cope
False. If the events didn't happen it's pointless to include it
Everything you think you know about the Earth, including the age, is false and propped up by pseudoscience. Heliocentrism was destroyed by Michelson-Morley and the Sagnac Effect. They kept adding more bullshit and more copes and now 96% of the observable universe doesn't even work with their moronic version of gravity (The bending and warping of space time) so they had to "invent" dark matter and energy rather than admit they are wrong. Relativity tells you everything you see is an illusion, which makes their model unfalsifiable. It's a bunch of bullshit and lies.
dinosaurs were trans btw