Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Those who wrote Genesis apparently didn't understand how planets formed, how solar systems formed or that a nebula is an astronomically large cloud of dust and gas.Have you considered how solar systems are formed...gases and particles and nebula. A nebula does glow, so in that sense there is light. Even once the sun and planets are formed there are generally clouds that can come between the two. Was there enough light coming from the sun to penetrate the clouds that may still have been covering the earth to bring forth plant life? In fact, can emerging plant life thrive without such protection from the sun?
Merely something to think about, because if those who wrote Genesis had this in mind, our ancient ancestors (as I suspect) were a great deal more intelligent than we credit them.
Doesn't this suggest that scientists have no knowledge of common types of literature?Those who wrote Genesis apparently didn't understand how planets formed, how solar systems formed or that a nebula is an astronomically large cloud of dust and gas.
It's a bit of a stretch to suggest that those who wrote about talking snakes and eternal punishment for fruit theft had any understanding of general relativity and space-time.
Your comment is typical of atheists. They are liars. And now we know they are religious fanatics.Wrong.
‘Atheism’ is neither ‘religion’ nor ‘belief’ – acknowledging the fact that there is no ‘god’ as perceived by theists is neither ‘religion’ nor ‘belief’; theism is the aberration.
I think this suggests that the writers of the bibles were not science minded and that they were unaware of nebula, gravitational affects relative to light, photons of light, etc.Doesn't this suggest that scientists have no knowledge of common types of literature?
The Bible is a book of literature--it is not a science text book. What is more memorable to you? Your middle school science text book or your favorite book or short story at that time?
Talking snakes: The personification of an animal to teach a lesson is fable. Aesop used this method to teach many lessons. The Bible uses fable less often than Aesop, but it is form of literature used by ancient man.
There was no eternal punishment for "fruit theft". There were consequences. Orthodox Jews, to this day, do not eat fruit from a tree until after its third season. This is because of the belief that while the fruit from the tree of knowledge was eventually to be for them, its fruit wasn't quite ready yet. In the story, we have serpent persuading the woman that there was no need to wait--the fruit was indeed ready. The woman looked at the fruit, and indeed it did look luscious, so why wait? Answer: The unknown consequences.
I love the irony. The woman wanted knowledge and didn't yet have the knowledge to consider unknown consequences. On one hand she had God saying it was not yet ready to eat; on the other hand, it looked ready and she was hungry for knowledge.
Are you supposing the point of the story was to inform their descendants that snakes talk?So, yes. Talking snakes, supernatural entities, magic gardens, "satan", etc., provides some of us the conclusion that bibles are not science texts or even particularly good literature
Are you supposing you know otherwise?Are you supposing the point of the story was to inform their descendants that snakes talk?
Snakes don't talk. Never did. Our ancestors knew this, because they knew nature better than we do today.Are you supposing you know otherwise
I don't eat meat. I'm not a vegetarian. People call me that, but the truth is that I don't eat meat.Your comment is typical of atheists. They are liars. And now we know they are religious fanatics.
Snakes talked in the Bible. I don't recall the bible including any LOL's after the snake's comment to Eve. The entire Genesis storyline is along the lines of 'this is how existence came to be' as the result of supernatural intervention. "Man from dust" is not knowing nature better than our modern understanding of cell biology.Snakes don't talk. Never did. Our ancestors knew this, because they knew nature better than we do today.
Everything on this planet came into being from the earth--from the ground up, we might say. Everything on this planet returns to the ground. That is how we explain it (evolution) today--and that is the way they explained it then.Snakes talked in the Bible. I don't recall the bible including any LOL's after the snake's comment to Eve. The entire Genesis storyline is along the lines of 'this is how existence came to be' as the result of supernatural intervention. "Man from dust" is not knowing nature better than our modern understanding of cell biology.
That's not true. Everything on the planet came from matter originating in the cosmos.Everything on this planet came into being from the earth--from the ground up, we might say. Everything on this planet returns to the ground. That is how we explain it (evolution) today--and that is the way they explained it then.
www.livescience.com
That's tracing the planet's origins. Yes, obviously, life that started on Earth can then trace Earth's ancestry to the cosmos--but its birth was from earth. Much the same way I trace my birth in the North American continent to American parents. After establishing my immediate parentage, I can then trace my ancestors beginnings to another continent.That's not true. Everything on the planet came from matter originating in the cosmos.
It's boring to argue about semantics.I don't eat meat. I'm not a vegetarian. People call me that, but the truth is that I don't eat meat.
I don't believe in your god. I'm not an atheist. People call me that, but the truth is that I don't believe in the god. The word "atheist" is a used as a judgement by those who preach against judgment.
No, trying to figure out what this God of yours was up to is not ludicrous at all. It's what all thinking people need to do. A question: Where did Adam go after he died?Talking about the temporal order of events in the context of God is so ludicrous.
I don't concern myself with details of what may be a parable. I'm concerned with the nuts and bolt of how to live. Atheists love to go into the Old Testament and point out minor apparent inconsistencies and scream "See??" But it's just a diversion so they don't have to address the glaring weaknesses and malevolence of atheism.No, trying to figure out what this God of yours was up to is not ludicrous at all. It's what all thinking people need to do. A question: Where did Adam go after he died?
Why do you feel the need to call people atheists? Do you imagine that they stand against you in any real capacity?It's boring to argue about semantics.
See, you have to argue about semantics lol. I like to call them SAF and POS.Why do you feel the need to call people atheists? Do you imagine that they stand against you in any real capacity?
No. The question to you is: Do you imagine that atheists stand against you in any real capacity?See, you have to argue about semantics lol. I like to call them SAF and POS.
The atheist Marxists who want to take over the US for their own wealth and power, and who give marching orders to the US media are certainly standing against Christians.No. The question to you is: Do you imagine that atheists stand against you in any real capacity?
Why are you not answering the question?
You make a mistake common among religious extremists of claiming atheism as the reason for the acts of sociopaths such as Stalin. That's clearly false but it's a tactic used by religious extremists who have a need to promote their hate.I don't concern myself with details of what may be a parable. I'm concerned with the nuts and bolt of how to live. Atheists love to go into the Old Testament and point out minor apparent inconsistencies and scream "See??" But it's just a diversion so they don't have to address the glaring weaknesses and malevolence of atheism.
For example, atheists are enormously troubled by Jesus getting angry at the moneychangers in the Temple claiming (falsely) that Jesus whipped them with a cord; yet they seem completely unbothered by the fact that their atheist icon Joe Stalin butchered tens of millions.
