Russia embraces religious intolerance with draconian blasphemy and anti-gay laws

[DeistPaladin]

I don't notice any section of their site for any belief other than Christianity.

They may have changed their site since I was banned. This happened several years ago.

[fr0d0]

Wow you have one of those bikes that pedals backwards!

[Psykhronic]

DP made a pretty reasonable point - sites change.

[DeistPaladin]

DP. Give me something to post on ChristianForums. You know the rules there. Let's test your claim.

OK, how about my most recent post on the subject of Genesis 1 and how that's incompatible with science (the study of reality) even when read as a metaphoric account.

In fact, that's what got me censored and banned last time.

[fr0d0]

K good.

I've already thoroughly answered that one, but your interest is with so called literalists/ young earth creationists right?

I'll go post it now. We're only allowed one point per post. No other atheists are allowed to post, and only one interpretation, that of the first to respond, is allowed. Let's hope we catch a live one.

[fr0d0]

K posted. I edited out the insulting tone etc trying to keep to the original as closely as possible. Seems like kindergarten theology to me, although of course a very valid question. Bread and butter to Christians so we should easily get a bite.

---

Inconsistencies between biblical and scientific
explanations of creation - Gen 1
God creates light and calls it "day" in Gen 1:5.
However, he doesn't create the sun until "day" 4,
in Gen 1:16.
Scripture states that he created the sun (or
"greater light") to "rule the day", or rather, defines
the whole concept of "day", as well as "evening"
and "morning" mentioned on days 1, 2 and 3,
referenced respectively in Gen 1:5, 1:8, and 1:13.
So how exactly were there "evenings" and
"mornings" without a sun?
Curiously, the sun isn't created until day 4,
whatever day must mean since the sun, the very
thing that defines what is a "day", wasn't created
for the first three of them.
Plants, which require sunlight, were created on
day 3 in Gen 1:11-12. Now, plants, which thrive
on photosynthesis, were created prior to the very
thing that feeds them. You'd think a designer
would work the other way around.
Science tells us that the sun is older than our
earth and plants came much later, after the earth
cooled sufficiently. So day 3 would need to come
after day 4.
God creates the stars in the sky in 1:16 almost as
an afterthought.
Primitive Hebrews didn't realize the stars were
distant suns. Had they known this, perhaps they
would have had the stars created on "day 1",
instead of "day 4". Not only are many stars older
than our sun but they are much older than our
earth. The earth was created on day 3, Gen 1:10.
The firmament was created on day 2 (Gen 1:6).
He calls this firmament "Heaven" (Gen 1:8).
Interestingly enough, the ancient Hebrew word for
"Heaven" and "sky" are one and the same. So the
verse in Gen 1:8 could be translated to "and God
called the firmament 'sky'."
To the ancient Hebrews, the sky must have
looked like a dome and, judging by scripture, they
thought it was.
So, to sum up:
The biblical account of creation:
Day 1: Light and dark, day and night.
Day 2: Heaven
Day 3: Earth, dry land, plants.
Day 4: Sun, moon and stars.
Day 5: Fish, birds.
Day 6: Animals and humans
Day 7: God rests
A scientific representation of the order of events:
Day 1: Time, space, matter
Day 2: Stars
Day 3: Sun, molten earth
Day 4: Cooled earth, sea, plants
Day 5: Animals
Day 6: Humans


(if a mod wants to clean this up be my guest. I've had enough!)

---

[DeistPaladin]

I've already thoroughly answered that one, but your interest is with so called literalists/ young earth creationists right?

Actually, my post that you quoted deals with trying to work out how to interpret Genesis 1 from a metaphoric standpoint. It's can't be done, even with the greatest of poetic license. The order of events is completely wrong.

[fr0d0]

Your post only deals with the scientific/ materialist/ supposedly literalist pov I thought.

It is poetic metaphor but it's way wider than you're shooting there. There is, for example, absolutely nothing linked to actual events as you're trying to understand them. This is pretty solidly indisputable.

The poetic language fits exactly with the subject: the authors setting up the main character in his theatre of operation.

[fr0d0]

Some replies for you DP

1.

The bible isn't meant to teach science. Genesis is not meant to tell us exactly how the universe was created. Rather, it is the demythologizing of the universe. The Israelites had just come out of Egypt when this was written, and its purpose is to show that there are not numerous gods controlling the sun, stars, and all life, but rather it is all the work of God the almighty.

---

2.

The answer is simple. In Genesis 1, verse 2-5 God created and separated the light between night and day. That light maintained the flora.

---

3.

To the OP: As you may know, Christians are split. The "mainline" denominations accept the critical approach to scholarship that developed starting in the Reformation and moving into the Enlightenment. For us, the Bible is the account of how God worked with Israel, and then through Jesus and the first generation or two of followers.

As such, we don't see the Bible itself as a revelation, but as records from the people that God worked with. Thus we see Genesis as the "pre-history" of Israel, showing much about their concept of themselves and their relationship with God, but not so much about astronomy and even history.

But a majority of American Christians today are members of more conservative groups, that see the Bible is God's Word, not dictated by him exactly, but representing truth in scientific and historical terms. They have developed interpretations of Genesis that you might not find obvious reading it for yourself, but which show it to be at least self-consistent, and (depending upon the person) consistent with at least much of the scientific view, if not all of it. (E.g. accepting an old earth but rejecting evolution seems to be common.)

If you're interested in exploring Christianity for yourself, I'd be happy to talk with you. I doubt you'd be interested in the conservative approach. If you want to argue with Christians, I'll stay out of it, as the more conservative folks would probably be more satisfying discussion partners.

[fr0d0]

And the right answer comes in :

"Genesis 1 isn't a scientific text. It's not about a journalistic, wooden accounting of material origins; but a theological proclamation of the good Creator God investing purpose and meaning into His good creation; the crafting of the sacred spaces of His dwelling, and filling them.

Simultaneously, the text is a theological polemic that demotes and de-divinizes the cosmic powers which other Near Eastern cultures worshiped.
As far as the spaces and their filling, notice the parallel:

Day 1 - Light and separation of day and night;
Day 4 - Creation of sun, moon, and stars to fill and rule the day and night.

Day 2 - separation of waters, sky and sea;
Day 5 - Creation of fish and fowl to fill and rule the sky and sea.

Day 3 - separation of dry land from water;
Day 6 - Creation of land dwelling beasts to fill and rule the dry land.

The final creative act is to place the Divine Image itself into this temple of creation--mankind, to act as God's image-bearers and priests to care for the good creation of God.

Genesis 1 is theology, not science. It's not a how of material creation, but a why and what .

-CryptoLutheran"