RE: In the beginning...
April 12, 2013 at 3:41 am
(This post was last modified: April 12, 2013 at 4:07 am by A_Nony_Mouse.)
(April 9, 2013 at 9:20 am)Texas Sailor Wrote: God created (blank) from...
What material?
Something believers choose to translate as VOID. In other translations and in other versions of the same myth it is WATERS which separated into above and below. There is really no creation involved. It is only implied by the use of the word void.
(April 9, 2013 at 10:32 am)Drich Wrote: ...
If you look at Genesis 1:1 something did not come out of nothing. "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the earth, and the earth was without form and void."
Void where prohibited by law?
Quote:It says God created X and Y It does not say from nothing X and Y were manifested. We know this because the word for Create is the Hebrew ברא bara' it means to shape or form. The Idea is like taking a lump of clay or a rock and to shape it into a vessal.
The word means to shape or form, create in the sense of art but there is always something being shaped or formed. Shaping the void sounds like fun. Know where I can get some void?
"In the beginning God SHAPED the Heavens and the earth, and the earth was an amorphous mass."
(April 9, 2013 at 10:40 am)Tonus Wrote: Genesis 1:1-2 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
It's tricky to figure this out, but the impression is that he formed dry land and placed it upon a foundation of some kind. Because after saying that 'the earth was without form and void' it tells us that there was something called 'the deep' and that there were 'waters'. Was 'the deep' a 'void' filled with water, from which god brought forth land?
It is not really tricky. It is the pious translators who impose their theology on the text. The same stories are told about other creator gods such as Amun of Egypt. And for us we are hampered by that being centuries old theology and the use of words that were outdated in the time of King James to give the impression of and old text.
An old question is who originally wrote those words and why do you believe them? That is regardless of original intended meaning or translation, who and why? The follow up question is, who told you they were inspired and why did you believe them? There are no internal provers.
(April 11, 2013 at 10:46 pm)Texas Sailor Wrote: Reading all of the responses in favor theism makes it blatantly obvious that you have nearly abandoned a God in every possible traditional sense. It's not even really theism you are defending anymore but rather more of an abstract deistic description of some ridiculous conscious entity to which you ascribe the title of "God". You are grasping at straws and splitting hairs to make room to jam the creator you continue to tailor to objections for the purpose of continued discourse. You have ignored every impossibility implied by all of you claims with responses such as "I think its a totality..." WHAT?! Do you read the things you write? What the fuck do you even claim to believe anymore? What a bunch of contradicting bullshit. You sound like absolute morons. Take these Ad Hominems and jam them up your totalities! If you are throwing logic out the window to make your own rules, I can too! Two wrongs make a right! FUCK IT! Lol
In my informal studies one of the things I realized is that the religion of the people is not the religion of the priests. You are seeing all the different religions held by the people. It is the sort of thing that caused the Spanish Inquisition to declare the situation hopeless after one short foray into the countryside.
