Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
September 22, 2014, 07:24:56 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: lol, q to the religious  (Read 1513 times)
_bruce_
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 16298


Anus Rising


« Reply #25 on: March 19, 2014, 02:59:06 PM »

Would be really interesting to track down our real origins. Truth lies probably between the common ideas. The bible's version seems outlandish - but who knows. The world is way crazier than even the most hardened loon could imagine... so there's hope for a surprise.
Report to moderator   Logged

[
Lustral
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3420


FREE NOODLES


« Reply #26 on: March 19, 2014, 03:00:58 PM »

why doesnt the bible adress dinosaurs?

 Grin Grin

i mean, do you deny dinosaurs?



Bill Hicks?

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gYnPNR8p8I" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gYnPNR8p8I</a>
Report to moderator   Logged
dario73
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6263


Getbig!


« Reply #27 on: March 19, 2014, 03:31:48 PM »

oh

zekiel 29:3
...speak, and say, Thus says the Lord GOD: "Behold, I am against you, Pharaoh king of Egypt, the great dragon that lies in the midst of his streams, that says, 'My Nile is my own; I made it for myself.'


so they must have co existed i guess Grin

and the dinos aparently could even speak Shocked



Obviously you don't understand symbolism.

The Bible mentions what believers need to try to live a righteous life before God.
So what if it doesn't mention dinosaurs? It also doesn't mention cats and many other animals. Does it matter?

Report to moderator   Logged
GymTime
Getbig II
**
Gender: Male
Posts: 138


« Reply #28 on: March 19, 2014, 04:40:38 PM »

Dinosaurs and man did coexist.  If you think "jurassic park" is how things were lol, then you are more brainwashed than I thought.  No reason they could not live during the same period of time.

The Bible teaches that the Earth is young, probably 6000-7000 years old.  There is science to back this up as well, but most God haters on here have never actually studied this out, but instead just eat up the "billions of years ago" that they are fed without ever questioning things for themselves. 

There are 7 of these seminars.  Watch all seven and then get back to me.  Until you've heard the arguments for the young earth you are just blindly arguing an opinion which isn't based on hearing the facts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szBTl3S24MY

Report to moderator   Logged
Man of Steel
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 15034


Isaiah40:28-31 ✝ Romans10:9 ✝ 1Peter3:15


WWW
« Reply #29 on: March 20, 2014, 07:23:12 AM »

But If God's "day" meant ages, how does the earth's vegetation, created on day 3, thrive for so long without sunlight (day 4)?

hey man of steel

I looked it up for myself and multiple sources say the bible says the earth is 6000 years old

how the fuck do you believe the garbage from that book

Hey MoS, still waiting to find out how this 'creation' story happens. Is it a bit like Titanfall where the Titans, or Dinosaurs, drop from the sky?

But for real dude, I am actually curious. Do they appear from nowhere?

I'll be happy to discuss this later on....hopefully today.   
Report to moderator   Logged

Man of Steel
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 15034


Isaiah40:28-31 ✝ Romans10:9 ✝ 1Peter3:15


WWW
« Reply #30 on: March 20, 2014, 07:42:51 AM »

Here is something I posted about a month ago in another thread that I think got blowed up:

Here's the thing, people assume my position on creation and the ages of the universe/earth, but since I was about 10 years old I've been questioning the ages of things and today I'm much more persuaded by an old earth and old universe perspective.  I actually perceived a “day-age” notion of creation before I’d even realized it had been proposed.  I asked my Mom about it as kid and she had no idea but said “it could be”.

Does this damage my faith or scripture?  Not at all....it actually strengthens it (much longer discussion obviously).

Further, the age of the earth and the universe have no bearing whatsoever on faith in Jesus Christ and his revelation in my life.

Still, there is a part of me that has never been convinced of a young earth creation perspective.  I am overcome with the evidence for an old earth and old universe and how current geological and cosmological findings help strengthen and align with the creation accounts in Genesis and Job (on which my faith is founded first but again a much longer discussion).

I am much more persuaded by the notion of 6 days of creation occurring over 6 ages and that in fact we are existing in God's 7th day/age of rest after his activity of creation (as all 6 creation days had a “morning and evening” except day 7 which appears to be ongoing to the present).  The hebrew word for “day” is "yom" and actually has multiple definitions.  "Yom" can refer to the daylight, an actual 24-hour day or a long expanse of time (ex: an age).  Moses who was divinely inspired to write Genesis had no other Hebrew word other than “yom” to use to describe these things so we must be willing to step deeper into the text and the source languages to understand it (because Hebrew to English isn’t always 100% cut and dry).   Hebrew words used in the Genesis creation account such as “happa’am”  which literally translates into “at long last” (which Adam exclaimed after Eve’s creation) and Adam being asked to tend the entire garden and name all the animals, being put into deep sleep, being operated on for the creation of woman and the determination that man should no longer be alone (implying a period of loneliness on Adam’s part prior to Eve’s creation) would be hard, hard pressed to fit into a single 24 hour day.   Also biblical references to the “generations of creation” and the biblical statement that a thousand years is like a day to God is compelling.  These are just some things to consider and by no means an exhaustive list  and I haven’t even discussed how creation events and cosmological and geological ages of the universe and earth align with creation accounts LOL….and they do!!

Gleason Archer was perhaps the foremost linguistic theologian who ever lived and prior to his death his explanation of biblical Hebrew (which he was an expert) puts the literal explanation of "yom" as a literal 24-hour day in Genesis 1 and 2 in absolute question.....he is by no means alone in this interpretation.  There’s an old story that goes that as a student of languages Gleason would actually take notes in one language class using ancient Hittite LOL!!

Admittedly I was raised in a typical young earth (6000 years) literal days creation household, but I've done my own independent study and actually attended a series of lectures on these very topics over this last weekend (believers actually read and study).  I've also made it my personal goal in 2014 to finally come to terms with my position on the age of the universe/earth, biblical creation accounts in Genesis and Job (and elsewhere…yes there are more creation accounts than Genesis), and my definite position on evolution.  I see definite evidence for microbial changes (ex: evolution of bacteria and viruses yet both remain bacteria and viruses – the flu virus) and definite speciation in very small animals under 10lbs.  We see that some birds (ex: some finches) have evolved slightly due to environmental circumstances (yet remain finches), but no significant evidence for a "macro evolution" position (one species into another) has ever been completely validated.  The fossil evidence of the cambrian explosion (so many, many animals suddenly appearing at once) and the totality of fossil record lacking any specific transitioning examples simply doesn't support a species to species (macro) evolutionary change (and yes I'm aware that 'science' only has 'evolution' not 'macro' and 'micro').  We merely have artistic renderings (including some definite artistic license....the classic "deer to whale" evolution example) to help make the case.  But a definite record of fossils?  None yet.  Even though our universe if almost 14 billion years old that is not enough time for a large species to evolve into another; hence some sects of the scientific community push for an even grander age of the cosmos than has been established in order to compensate for this…….modern cosmology refutes this “even older universe” position.

Further in this year’s pursuits I’m also attempting to solidify my position on the flood of Noah.  Was it worldwide in terms of humanity and therefore localized or literally a global flood?  I haven’t finished my readings on this topic yet so I have no fully formed opinion at this time.

At this point in time I am much more persuaded and adopt an old-earth creationist perspective as I can still make a definite distinction between the concepts of age and evolution while in absolute support of creation, but I plan on continuing to study more debates (old v young creation, old creation v evolution, young creation v evolution, etc…) and continue my independent reading (I read this material everyday and listen to debates on these subjects almost daily).  I’ve already taken university level physics, biology, genetics and chemistry courses (yes believers study science in school also) so I grasp the secular, scientific position (not exhaustively LOL, but beyond an average layman).  And again I haven’t even discussed how creation events and secular origins of the universe align LOL…..and they do!

I’m humble enough to admit that I don’t have all the answers and believe me that coming to terms with this is not something I take lightly (it shakes some believers to their core and others to cry "heresy!!"), but like others I will continue to search out answers honestly and proactively.  I’m simply willing to examine both secular science and theology and do so with an attitude of learning and humility.

Although, my foundation is now and forever in Jesus Christ
Report to moderator   Logged

Man of Steel
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 15034


Isaiah40:28-31 ✝ Romans10:9 ✝ 1Peter3:15


WWW
« Reply #31 on: March 20, 2014, 07:44:12 AM »

But If God's "day" meant ages, how does the earth's vegetation, created on day 3, thrive for so long without sunlight (day 4)?

Here's a post from early last year on a few topics including the "creation of the lights":

Decided to stop and answer some of you lingering objections ahmed.  You often cite the contradicting accounts of created light in Genesis, the tempting of Christ and Paul's contradicting conversion accounts. 

Hope this helps:

Creation of light in Genesis:   On day 1 God created the heavens and the earth.  He then said, “let there be light” on day one and in doing so he established day from night.  This notion lends itself to the scientific theory of angular momentum in that when the earth was formed it was created by a spinning mass of gases and material that maintains the same spinning momentum today that it did during creation.  The earth spins on its axis facing towards and away from the sun during a 24-hour period distinquishing day and night respectively.  The gravitational pull of the sun causes the earth to rotate around it while the angular momentum from creation caused the earth to spin on its axis.  That said, the earth and sun (part of the heavens) were both created on day one, but the “let there be light” comment indicates the first penetration or appearance or visibility of the sun’s light through earth’s recently formed atmosphere (firmament) that was initially full of spinning debris and gas (clouding the view of the heavens).  Then on day 4 the earth was continuing to be formed and shaped and the atmosphere (firmament) further cleared.  Remember, the heavens and earth were created on day one, but the “let there be” phrase does not indicate further creation….it indicates the greater visibility of light emitted from previously created heavenly bodies through earth’s atmosphere.  Although, Genesis 1:16 indicates that God “made two great lights” and thereinlies some confusion.  The English word “made” comes from the Hebrew “asah” which can be translated “had made” (a past tense reference).  Given that, the two great lights referenced were already made on day one with the creation of the “heavens and earth”.    The light producing celestial bodies on day four (that were created on day one) were more visible through earth’s clearing atmosphere on day four as the earth was continuing to be formed.
   
Jesus’ temptation: The first idea we must acknowledge is that God (who is one) limited his Sonship essence/personhood into that of a man in Jesus Christ who was born by the Holy Spirit and lived as a sinless, mortal man on Earth.  Christ’s plan on earth was to live and die as the perfect, sinless sacrifice for all of us.  He was fully a human man with all the limitations therein, but he drew strength, guidance and power from his Fatherly essence/personhood in heaven.  That said, he prayed, worked, hungered, thirsted and was even tempted by Satan as any man on Earth, but make no mistake he was no ordinary man.  Satan sought to tempt the man Jesus Christ, but was does it mean to tempt?  It means he tested the temporarily limited God-man Jesus Christ in hopes that Christ would fall prey to the temptation and sin, but Christ defended himself with nothing but the word by referencing the old testament scripture indicating that you “do not test the Lord your God” thereby defending himself and affirming the reality of who he was to Satan…..he is God.   Satan left shortly thereafter and the man Jesus Christ who has affirmed that he was God was them tended to and comforted by the angels because he was still a mortal man at that point.   

Yes, Christ did forgive some sins without his shedblood on the cross, but those acts were special displays of his mercy and grace.  The reality is Christ died for us, shed his blood for us so that we may in turn desire to choose him as our Lord and Savior.  He wants us to recognize our own faults, repent of our sins, acknowledge him as God, Lord and Savior, be indwelt by the Holy Spirit and live our lives according to his divine will for our lives.   If Christ simply forgave us with no effort on our parts what hope is there that we would be truly repentant and seek his will for our lives thereafter?   A “get outta jail free” card doesn’t help us move towards a true changing of our minds about sin…that’s why it’s so important that we acknowledge Christ’s act on calvary’s cross and what that means for the remainder of our earthly life and all of eternity.

Paul’s conflicting accounts in Acts:   First off, we need to understand that Paul did not write the book of Acts which details the separate accounts of his encounter with Christ on the road to Damascus.  Paul’s companion and physician Luke wrote the book of Acts.  That said, any confusing language is attributable to Luke not Paul; regardless, the “contradicting accounts” are easily reconcilable if an explanation of the source language (Greek) is provided.   That said, the primary contradiction often referred to is the notion of both “hearing the voice” and “not hearing the voice” in two separate accounts.   The reconciliation comes in understanding the use of the Greek word “akouo” which means “hearing”.  When the voice was heard the genitive case of “akouo” is used which means they heard a sound.  When the voice was not heard it refers to accusative case of “akouo” which means that the voice was heard but not understood.  Theology has often cited that Luke was very accurate and specific in the use of language so the alternative use of the Greek translated “akouo” reconciles the initial contradiction into definite non-contradiction.


Report to moderator   Logged

Man of Steel
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 15034


Isaiah40:28-31 ✝ Romans10:9 ✝ 1Peter3:15


WWW
« Reply #32 on: March 20, 2014, 07:47:17 AM »

hey man of steel

I looked it up for myself and multiple sources say the bible says the earth is 6000 years old

how the fuck do you believe the garbage from that book

Well, respectfully, it's not that cut and dry.

There is an ongoing debate between young earth creationists (YECs) and old earth creationists (OECs).   You can google tons of material from both perspectives, but I can assure you that many, many prominent Christian theologians and apologists of both the past and present hold to an old earth perspective.  
Report to moderator   Logged

Man of Steel
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 15034


Isaiah40:28-31 ✝ Romans10:9 ✝ 1Peter3:15


WWW
« Reply #33 on: March 20, 2014, 07:51:34 AM »

Hey MoS, still waiting to find out how this 'creation' story happens. Is it a bit like Titanfall where the Titans, or Dinosaurs, drop from the sky?

But for real dude, I am actually curious. Do they appear from nowhere?

Short answer: yes, I believe that God supernaturally created the different animals over a long period of time, but I do not believe that evolution was employed.  Some kinds of animals live to this day and others became extinct before God created humanity.  How does God's power work?  Wish I could tell ya LOL.
Report to moderator   Logged

Man of Steel
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 15034


Isaiah40:28-31 ✝ Romans10:9 ✝ 1Peter3:15


WWW
« Reply #34 on: March 20, 2014, 07:54:55 AM »

Sidenote:  I have nothing against young earth or old earth creationists.   I consider all to be equal believers in Christ.   Neither position has any impact on Christ's gift of salvation for all.
Report to moderator   Logged

no one
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 11204

have i hurt your feelings?


« Reply #35 on: March 20, 2014, 09:23:22 AM »


hey MOS sounds like your finding a decent balance between your faith, and what science has shown to be fact.

i dont think everything biblical is as cut and dried as it is written. there has to be room for interpretation, not in the gospels as they are fundamentally the backbone of the religion, but in the area of the creation and flood stories and things of that nature.

do you feel in some small way you are questioning your faith by coming to your own opinions outside of what the old testament gives as its basis for the truth in the creation/flood stories? how do you reconcile this?
Report to moderator   Logged
Man of Steel
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 15034


Isaiah40:28-31 ✝ Romans10:9 ✝ 1Peter3:15


WWW
« Reply #36 on: March 20, 2014, 11:15:36 AM »

hey MOS sounds like your finding a decent balance between your faith, and what science has shown to be fact.

i dont think everything biblical is as cut and dried as it is written. there has to be room for interpretation, not in the gospels as they are fundamentally the backbone of the religion, but in the area of the creation and flood stories and things of that nature.

do you feel in some small way you are questioning your faith by coming to your own opinions outside of what the old testament gives as its basis for the truth in the creation/flood stories? how do you reconcile this?

Well, what my study has forced me to do is look in much greater depth at the source language.  For example to understand the Hebrew of the OT especially in the passages that are questionable for many readers.  I don't read or speak Hebrew so I must rely on the knowledge of professional linguists and theologians for guidance.  In doing so it's helped shake things up for me personally, but in a good way.  To see some reconciliation between biblical scripture and science (and I always adhere to scripture first) provokes new thoughts and positions for consideration. 

Folks that have lived their entire lives adhering to a position that "the earth is 6000 years old" can really be shaken up when they begin to understand how the hebrew language can be translated.  Even a single word can mean a great deal of difference, but ultimately we must rely on the whole of scripture and the context of the passages to guide our findings (fortunately I let the theological pros do the majority of that heavy lifting.....bb related). 

What folks have to careful of is entering the arena of the hermeneutical notion of concordance.  In the setting of biblical study, concordance typically employs a strategy of scriptural isogesis to validate a set of modern theological assumptions as opposed to a traditional exegetical perspective.  Essentially you interpret scripture based on your presuppositions first (ex: scientific findings) as opposed to letting scripture first speak for itself and then find the alignment with science.
Report to moderator   Logged

The Ugly
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 12670



WWW
« Reply #37 on: March 20, 2014, 04:21:13 PM »

Here's a post from early last year on a few topics including the "creation of the lights":



Thanks for the response.
Report to moderator   Logged
no one
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 11204

have i hurt your feelings?


« Reply #38 on: March 21, 2014, 11:17:24 AM »

Well, what my study has forced me to do is look in much greater depth at the source language.  For example to understand the Hebrew of the OT especially in the passages that are questionable for many readers.  I don't read or speak Hebrew so I must rely on the knowledge of professional linguists and theologians for guidance.  In doing so it's helped shake things up for me personally, but in a good way.  To see some reconciliation between biblical scripture and science (and I always adhere to scripture first) provokes new thoughts and positions for consideration.  

Folks that have lived their entire lives adhering to a position that "the earth is 6000 years old" can really be shaken up when they begin to understand how the hebrew language can be translated.  Even a single word can mean a great deal of difference, but ultimately we must rely on the whole of scripture and the context of the passages to guide our findings (fortunately I let the theological pros do the majority of that heavy lifting.....bb related).  

What folks have to careful of is entering the arena of the hermeneutical notion of concordance.  In the setting of biblical study, concordance typically employs a strategy of scriptural isogesis to validate a set of modern theological assumptions as opposed to a traditional exegetical perspective.  Essentially you interpret scripture based on your presuppositions first (ex: scientific findings) as opposed to letting scripture first speak for itself and then find the alignment with science.

ok i got you.

thanks for taking the time to reply.

can you take a minute to tell me how the gnostic gospels and the dead sea scrolls (ie the ones not represented in the bible) fit into your belief system, or if they do at all?

i know you adhere to the bible, but you also have an incredible desire for knowledge and a thirst for 'rightness' outside of what the faith you have asks that you trust in along the lines of how things fit into your belief system and what religion has told us is fact, and what science has told us is fact.

its refreshing to read your posts. they are well thought out, and have the logic that many of faith dont seem to care about. you do. to you it all has to 'make sense' before you can reconsile it all. i respect that greatly.
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!