Evidence supporting Jesus did not die on a cross...

[Scheavo]

Here's my question... God spent 6 "days" creating Earth, but he creates the heavens in a blink of an eye? There's billions upon billions of "Earths" out there, and seeing as how this creation story centers solely upon Earth, I think it's fair to say it's a creation story written by people who thought the sun revolved around the Earth, or some other idea which cosmology has thoroughly disproven.

[jammindude]

Sorry, misread the land animals one. Still says birds came before land animals, which is wrong. And the stars are obviously 1:14, by which Earth already has plants. The stars have been around since time immemorial, long before Earth formed.

Also, apparently "light" came after Earth was created. How does that work with science? The sun had been around long before Earth, and light itself, well, since spacetime began.

rumborak

To me, from the moment "let there be light" is spoken...it is self evident that we are talking about light being visible on the earth.   I don't see how people leap to the conclusion that there was no light in existence, at all, anywhere in the universe.   I mean....duh.     So obviously, the account is talking about light as it is visible from the earth.    (I mean, how basic do you wanna make this)   So it follows that since we have that foundation of things as they appear from the earth, it follows that the other creative days point out when the sun, moon and stars became visible from the earth.   

If you really want to go back to where EVERYTHING was created (as in, earth, moon, sun, stars, universe..."the big bang") you need only look at Genesis 1:1 - "In the beginning, God created the heavens [sun, moon, stars, universe] and the earth."    Then we start getting into the earth being turned into someplace that life could form....starting with just a general "light", and then actual visible luminaries by the fourth "day.   

[jammindude]

Here's my question... God spent 6 "days" creating Earth, but he creates the heavens in a blink of an eye? There's billions upon billions of "Earths" out there, and seeing as how this creation story centers solely upon Earth, I think it's fair to say it's a creation story written by people who thought the sun revolved around the Earth, or some other idea which cosmology has thoroughly disproven.

Doesn't science teach "the big bang" or something akin to it?   

The creation account does focus solely on the earth...so that part of your statement is correct.   But the Bible NEVER says that "the sun revolved around the earth"...so that is pure conjecture.   Actually, during a time when most humans (and all religions) taught that the earth was flat and riding on the back of a giant sea turtle, the Bible said that the earth was a sphere (English "circle" but the original Hebrew "chugh" meant a spherical circle) and that it was "hanging on nothing"...

[GuineaPig]

Trying to pretend that ancient Hebrews knew jack shit about modern cosmology is a huuuuuuuuge stretch.

[jammindude]

Trying to pretend that ancient Hebrews knew jack shit about modern cosmology is a huuuuuuuuge stretch.

I don't claim they knew anything...as a matter of fact, I'm claiming they *COULDN'T* have....there's no way they could possibly know.   If they were writing down what *their* knowledge was, it wouldn't be God's Word...it would be men's. 

[rumborak]

Jammin, do you not feel like you need to twist and knead every single passage to make it work? Every of your responses has required uncommon meanings of words, inferrals ("oh, that part refers to light reaching Earth, not light per se", "the word 'Heavens' here included everything" ) etc etc.
Dunno, but i would expect a supposedly divinely inspired text to not require linguistic resuscitation at every turn.

I'm dying to hear your explanation how the birds came before the land animals.

rumborak

[jammindude]

The evidence is not absolutely conclusive...

In the book Evolution by biologist Colin Patterson (pg 132) there is a theory that birds may have come before. 

But I'm not saying that's conclusive...I'm just saying that it's not an absolute forgone conclusion that *everyone* agrees on.

Add to that that the term used at Genesis 1:20 is "flying creature"...the Hebrew word here is "ohph"...which is another very general term that could mean any number of flying creatures....including insects and all forms of membrane types of flying creatures like the pterosaur. 


The most important thing is this.   *ALL* (without exception) *ALL* of the claims to the Bible's inaccuracy are based on preconceived notions as to its meaning.  NOT what it actually and factually says.     

[rumborak]

OK, this has made the transition from linguistic contortions to plain ridiculousness about membrane creatures that emerged straight out of the sea. Which is the point where I'm going to bed and am happy to be a heathen.

rumborak

[jammindude]

OK, this has made the transition from linguistic contortions to plain ridiculousness about membrane creatures that emerged straight out of the sea. Which is the point where I'm going to bed and am happy to be a heathen.

rumborak

*This* is your counterargument?   

[Scheavo]

Here's my question... God spent 6 "days" creating Earth, but he creates the heavens in a blink of an eye? There's billions upon billions of "Earths" out there, and seeing as how this creation story centers solely upon Earth, I think it's fair to say it's a creation story written by people who thought the sun revolved around the Earth, or some other idea which cosmology has thoroughly disproven.

Doesn't science teach "the big bang" or something akin to it?   

Not talking about the big bang, I'm talking about recent plant hunting missions that basically say there's billions of planets in our galaxy alone, and there's billions of galaxies. This is the result of just looking up at the sky.

The creation account does focus solely on the earth...so that part of your statement is correct.   But the Bible NEVER says that "the sun revolved around the earth"...so that is pure conjecture.   Actually, during a time when most humans (and all religions) taught that the earth was flat and riding on the back of a giant sea turtle, the Bible said that the earth was a sphere (English "circle" but the original Hebrew "chugh" meant a spherical circle) and that it was "hanging on nothing"...

My point wasn't meant to be literal, just that people at that time knew nothing of modern cosmology, and it's evident in the creation story they created. It makes the Earth out to be far more important than it actually is, and humans far more important than they actually are.
 
Under no scientific theory that I've ever heard about, has the Earth been "hanging on nothing;" if Einstein corrects, it's more like it's lying on something, but even that's a crude pigeonholing to human experience.

Also, for learned people at the time, it was fairly accepted to posit that the earth was round. The circumference had already been calculated pretty accurately, 200 years previously in Egypt. Your claim that they couldn't have known otherwise, is factually wrong.  The people who wrote the Bible were more educated than most people at the time, nothing more.

[jammindude]

Scheavo: 

Part 1 - I agree in every respect.   To me, the possibly quadrillions of stars and planets only testify to the awesome power of God.   But...no one has actually found another "earth"...so it's still just a theory.  There are no "class M" planets yet.   Only a theory that "there *must* be"...

Part 2 - I find this argument one of the most disturbing lines of thought in the scientific community (not science as a whole).  God dignifies people (I'm speaking of God as a separate entity from religion and/or theology, which does precisely the opposite)...whereas the theory of evolution, from my own observation, degrades the human race. 

[Scheavo]

I'm not sure what you mean by degrading, but it seems to me it's most accurately putting us in our place. What makes humans "special"? It's not our intelligence. Many whales and Orcas are arguably more intelligent, they just can't build anything with the bodies their given. Cuttlefish show extreme intelligence and creativity, but they have such a short life span (~2-3 years iirc), limiting what they could possibly do. Language? Birds have languages, whales have languages, other primates have languages, dogs have language . Even crows use tools, and pass on culture and teaching to their offspring. What humans are is a species with a unique set of traits, and perhaps one of the more advanced cultures/languages, but I don't think that makes us "better" than other animals.

The extent to which I "degrade" humans, is also the extent to which I "dignify" animals. Other animals are truly fascinating.

[hefdaddy42]

To me, from the moment "let there be light" is spoken...it is self evident that we are talking about light being visible on the earth.   I don't see how people leap to the conclusion that there was no light in existence, at all, anywhere in the universe.   I mean....duh.     So obviously, the account is talking about light as it is visible from the earth.    (I mean, how basic do you wanna make this)   So it follows that since we have that foundation of things as they appear from the earth, it follows that the other creative days point out when the sun, moon and stars became visible from the earth.   

You are taking liberties with the text and assuming things that it isn't saying.

And whether or not you believe what Genesis says, it is talking about 24-hour days.  "The evening and the morning were the first day", "The evening and the morning were the second day", etc.  The word for "day" CAN mean other things, but context is used to make that determination.  The context here is pretty clear.

[jammindude]

To me, from the moment "let there be light" is spoken...it is self evident that we are talking about light being visible on the earth.   I don't see how people leap to the conclusion that there was no light in existence, at all, anywhere in the universe.   I mean....duh.     So obviously, the account is talking about light as it is visible from the earth.    (I mean, how basic do you wanna make this)   So it follows that since we have that foundation of things as they appear from the earth, it follows that the other creative days point out when the sun, moon and stars became visible from the earth.   

You are taking liberties with the text and assuming things that it isn't saying.

And whether or not you believe what Genesis says, it is talking about 24-hour days.  "The evening and the morning were the first day", "The evening and the morning were the second day", etc.  The word for "day" CAN mean other things, but context is used to make that determination.  The context here is pretty clear.

With Paul's explanation of still being in the seventh day, God is elaborating on his earlier word.   I'm not the one saying those terms are figurative...  God's Word's explains itself.  Hebrews 4:1-10 makes it pretty clear that the seventh day is thousands of years long.    So this isn't a teaching any man came up with...this is straight from God's Word.    If you choose to believe that Genesis is talking about 24 hour days, that's your right...but it isn't what the Bible teaches. 

[bosk1]

That is not what Hebrews 4 teaches.  There is nothing in there about us presently being in "the seventh day."

[rumborak]

If you choose to believe that Genesis is talking about 24 hour days, that's your right...but it isn't what the Bible teaches.

It is rather remarkable how you dismiss 2000 years of theology. That the 7 days of Creation were 7 literal days had never been in doubt up until modern cosmology. Then again, nobody has ever questioned that the word "crucify" ever meant anything else but being nailed on a cross.

rumborak

[bosk1]

Then again, nobody has ever questioned that the word "crucify" ever meant anything else but being nailed on a cross.

rumborak

I'm still kind of wondering exactly what that article is trying to say.  The main points seems to be simply that whatever Jesus died on, we shouldn't necessarily assume that it was what we think of as a "cross" today.  At least, I think that's what he was saying.  And that's probably true.  Jesus himself referred to a "cross," as did the NT writers after him.  But should we assume it was the kind of "cross" commonly depicted in art and literature?  Not necessarily.  How would we know?

But there was at least one thing I found troublesome with the argument.  The author also seemed to say that Biblical text is silent about how Jesus was attached to whatever he was crucified on, and so we shouldn't assume he was "nailed" to it.  That isn't really true either.  While there aren't many references, as John records Thomas' infamous skepticism about Jesus having arisen, Thomas wanted as proof to touch the marks of the nails on Jesus' flesh.  (John 20:24-26)  The think the implication is pretty straightforward.  Paul, in making a point about the Jewish law becoming obsolete once Jesus died, makes the point, "This [the Jewish law] he set aside, nailing it to the cross."  (Col 2:24)  While it is true that this text is not directly addressing how Jesus was crucified, it seems clear enough that Paul is trying to draw a very visual parallel between Jesus death and the passing away of the law, so it would not really make sense for him to reference being nailed to a cross if that was not what in fact happened to Jesus.  I'm not really sure what the author was trying to say here.

[hefdaddy42]

With Paul's explanation of still being in the seventh day, God is elaborating on his earlier word.   I'm not the one saying those terms are figurative...  God's Word's explains itself.  Hebrews 4:1-10 makes it pretty clear that the seventh day is thousands of years long.    So this isn't a teaching any man came up with...this is straight from God's Word.    If you choose to believe that Genesis is talking about 24 hour days, that's your right...but it isn't what the Bible teaches.

Hebrews 4:10 doesn't say any such thing.  And Paul didn't write Hebrews anyway.

And yes, the Bible most certainly does teach that Genesis is talking about 24-hour days.  It's right there in Genesis.  No linguistic gymnastics required.

What I was taking issue was your explanation that Genesis was dealing with when various forms of light were visible from earth.  That is where you are taking liberties with the text.

[Omega]

Although most of Genesis is, for obvious reasons, intended by the writers not to be taken literally, it actually makes some claims that are remarkably consistent with modern cosmology.

For example, in accordance with modern cosmology, it accurately predicts that the universe began to exist (there was no word for "universe" in Hebrew and so it is stated as "the heavens and the earth."

Also, in stating that light came into existence before the sun and the moon and the stars, it actually coincides with the Big Bang theory which postulates that light existed before stars formed.

Just thought I'd add that. Don't think too much of it.

[eric42434224]

Although most of Genesis is, for obvious reasons, intended by the writers not to be taken literally, it actually makes some claims that are remarkably consistent with modern cosmology.

For example, in accordance with modern cosmology, it accurately predicts that the universe began to exist (there was no word for "universe" in Hebrew and so it is stated as "the heavens and the earth."

Also, in stating that light came into existence before the sun and the moon and the stars, it actually coincides with the Big Bang theory which postulates that light existed before stars formed.

Just thought I'd add that. Don't think too much of it.

Genesis, like my broken watch, can be appear to be accurate in a couple rare instances too.  Like my watch, genesis just doesnt work (or isnt even meant to), and when it appears to be accurate, it is just dumb luck.

[Omega]

...Yes...uh

Good one, eric.

[eric42434224]

Cmon, you didnt think that someone wouldnt call out how silly that post was?


Although my watch is, for obvious reasons, not working, and not intended to be used to literally tell what time it is, it actually makes some claims that are remarkably consistent with cronology.

For example, in accordance with modern cronology, my watch accurately predicts the exact correct time, not once, but TWICE, every single day

 

[kirksnosehair]

Boy, I can feel the love, can't you? 

[Omega]

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0_rb3bmYIs&feature=fvst

[reneranucci]

Then again, nobody has ever questioned that the word "crucify" ever meant anything else but being nailed on a cross.

rumborak

I'm still kind of wondering exactly what that article is trying to say.  The main points seems to be simply that whatever Jesus died on, we shouldn't necessarily assume that it was what we think of as a "cross" today.  At least, I think that's what he was saying.  And that's probably true.  Jesus himself referred to a "cross," as did the NT writers after him.  But should we assume it was the kind of "cross" commonly depicted in art and literature?  Not necessarily.  How would we know?

But there was at least one thing I found troublesome with the argument.  The author also seemed to say that Biblical text is silent about how Jesus was attached to whatever he was crucified on, and so we shouldn't assume he was "nailed" to it.  That isn't really true either.  While there aren't many references, as John records Thomas' infamous skepticism about Jesus having arisen, Thomas wanted as proof to touch the marks of the nails on Jesus' flesh.  (John 20:24-26)  The think the implication is pretty straightforward.  Paul, in making a point about the Jewish law becoming obsolete once Jesus died, makes the point, "This [the Jewish law] he set aside, nailing it to the cross."  (Col 2:24)  While it is true that this text is not directly addressing how Jesus was crucified, it seems clear enough that Paul is trying to draw a very visual parallel between Jesus death and the passing away of the law, so it would not really make sense for him to reference being nailed to a cross if that was not what in fact happened to Jesus.  I'm not really sure what the author was trying to say here.

Excellent post bosk.

[Ħ]

Why are people talking about creationism when this thread has nothing to do with creationism?

[eric42434224]

Why are people talking about creationism when this thread has nothing to do with creationism?

The thread topic has nothing to do with creationism, but the content, direction, and discussion of the thread itself obviously does.

[Scheavo]

For example, in accordance with modern cosmology, it accurately predicts that the universe began to exist (there was no word for "universe" in Hebrew and so it is stated as "the heavens and the earth."

To take modern cosmology as saying this, you have to inappropriately use different definitions of the word "universe." At least to make it coherent with Christian theology.

[rumborak]

I would also say that it's not exactly an intellectual achievement to predict that the universe began to exist.

rumborak

[eric42434224]

My watch is correctly postulating that it will be 5:31 sometime today.

[Scheavo]

My watch is correctly postulating that it will be 5:31 sometime today.

Twice, most likely.

[hefdaddy42]

Although most of Genesis is, for obvious reasons, intended by the writers not to be taken literally,

Why would you say that?

[Nick]

Although most of Genesis is, for obvious reasons, intended by the writers not to be taken literally,

Why would you say that?

It's either that, or you claim that Genesis is literal, in which case there is little choice (without some major hoop jumping) but to make a decision between faith and science, and that's a choice most people are not willing to make.

[eric42434224]

Although most of Genesis is, for obvious reasons, intended by the writers not to be taken literally,

Why would you say that?

It's either that, or you claim that Genesis is literal, in which case there is little choice (without some major hoop jumping) but to make a decision between faith and science, and that's a choice most people are not willing to make.

I dont think he was asking about the reader today taking it literally, but why he thinks the writers of Genesis did not intend it to be taken literally.

[hefdaddy42]

Yes.