talkmagic.co.uk

Then if we are to understand the creation story symbolically (or any other way apart from literally), then why should/can we read the other stories such as the virgin birth, resurection, ascension, feeding of the five thousand, noah (or perhaps this is another story?) etc as being anything other than a symbolic story (i.e. rising from the dead sybolising being 'born again' after accepting god).
How do we choose which stories to believe, and which not to? Who decides, and how? There are no instructions in the bible to guide me on this. So it has to come from man.
(P.s. farlsborough, I haven't forgot the pm. Been a busy time at work.)

CREATIONISM: in most instances will speak of the great void that existed prior to "creation" itself and, if we are to go with the famed line of "let their be light" and from that the creation of the stars and planets... wait a minute!

ANALYTICAL PERSPECTIVE: Quantum Physics! which marries nicely together with the more esoteric Judaic traditions found in the Cabala and Sefer Yetzera and, according to author/anthropologist & Kabalist Migene Gonzalez-Wippler in her book "A Cabala for Modern-Man"... well, this is science supporting the METAPHORS found in the Genesis account.

In other words, just as Hawking recognized, the Big Bang is real and it is, if you look at what the bible actually says, the way it was done.

Now, let's toss in a hint of Rodenberry to go with this cocktail in that we've brought up the idea of Archetecs and Supreme Designers -- the Father Creator types... We saw in one of the Star Trek movies an idea as to how to create life on a planet void of life... Science-FICTION. But, realistically and given the progress we have seen in DNA type research, nano-technology, etc. Who is to say that in 100 to 200 years time, given that we do not destroy this world first... that our technology don't cross the line by launching a "missile" (for lack of a better term) into the nucleus of a black hole... the explosion of this device lending to this compressed mass, the "right" energy to cause an explosion... Let There be Light!... and from that the process of natural evolution begins -- WE, the Creators, merely placed all the right DNA and Chemical compounds into the appropriate atmosphere.

I don't see where it is so far-fetched and as we all know from simple tales about futuristic visitors in King Arthur's Court... well, our knowledge of things from today's era take to the times of our more primitive ancestors would in deed, make us seem Wizards or even GODS. Like it or not, the limited comprehension level of our creation would prevent it from understanding that we are just mortals... the same as they are, just "more advanced"...

Sound familiar?

Craig Browning wrote:Sound familiar?

No, you've lost me completely.

I don't mind if private schools teach creation, but when fundamentalists try to spin their way into public schools, my blood boils. The idea of being taught "this ancient piece of text that's been translated, mistranslated, "evolved", disproven, and condones violence and segregation is science" is ridiculous to me. The strongest creationist argument is just attacking the evolution theory. They don't even do that legitimately. EVEN if they manage to disprove evolution (not gonna happen), they won't have a decent, scientific theory. If I'm wrong about that, please, somebody, tell me what the "Creationist hypothesis" is.

I'm bored in my biology class because my teacher is dull, but it beats being taught non-science.

I believe in a mixture of the two. God created man in his own image.
Man evolved from the chimp. God is a chimp.
"Damn you all to hell!"

AndyRegs wrote:And as for one day meaning a thousand years, then reading further through the chapter, that would make adam, who apparently lived to a ridiculously old age, thousands of years old. And even if he did, the theory of creationism is still millions of years out.

Apparently they did live this long. I think it was Moses or Abraham that lived to 967 years old. The idea being that at that point man was so close tp perfection he lived a lot longer, and was supposed to have lived forever.. over the years due to imperfection the average life span has shortened significantly

Wow this post is a bit over my head but i have been watching 2 documentries one called space and one called the planets and both of them are saying that basically life is here because of luck which seems a bit far fetched to me. I dont see how everything could have fell perfectly into place. I dont really know which one it is thoe nor do i really care ive spent far too much of my younger years talking about this and got no answers so i dont think i am going to find out in my lifetime so ive sort of pushed it out my head. I think its just something we dont understand and something were not supposed to know which is why ive given up but its not going to stop N.A.S.A wasting billions upon billions of pounds to find something they may never find out.

Apparently they did live this long. I think it was Moses or Abraham that lived to 967 years old. The idea being that at that point man was so close tp perfection he lived a lot longer, and was supposed to have lived forever.. over the years due to imperfection the average life span has shortened significantly

I haven't got my dusty bible here to check, and to be honest, you would need an original translation to check this properly. But when the bible tells us these people are this old, and you are right that it does, If a day is a thousand years, then someone who is 967 years old would actually be 400,000,000. Otherwise, the bible would say that he was nearly one day old!

And like I said, it would still be billions of years out.

not everything in the bible is to be taken literally and not everything is to be taken as illustration.

a day is a thousand years in Gods eyes... but the bible was written by man. So 967 years can be taken literally. Its been a long time since I studied the bible.. so I cant ( and not got the energy ) to be sifting through wades of scriptures but it needs a deep study to know what to take literally and what to take as illustration or what things represent what..

not everything in the bible is to be taken literally and not everything is to be taken as illustration.

This basically sums up the problem I have with the bible. If you can't take it all literally, how can you take any of it literally. Who decides which bit to take literally or not. There is no guide to this in the bible. Why don't we read the virgin birth and the resurection symbolically. You can't pick and choose the bits that fit with what people believe, and pretend the other bits aren't there, or are not to be read 'literally'. It is only since science disproved various beliefs that this argument has come to the fore.

I dont think that Science has much to disproving the bible.. Science has down great things but hasnt imho answered the most basic of question 'how did we get here?' Im not convinced by its theories.

The bible told us the world was round thousands of years before man realised. Something somewhere about ' upon the sphere of the earth ' and some other references too.

I.D wrote:Science has down great things but hasnt imho answered the most basic of question 'how did we get here?' Im not convinced by its theories.

How about the evidence?

Yes exactly.. its all down to opinion. Some people will prefer to believe science and take scientific discoveries as evidence. Some people will take the bibles teachings as evidence.

This is a debate that neither side will ever win.. its one of those arguments where the two sides have to agree to disagree. I was brought up in religion and dont belive in evolution and never will. But then again... I have practiced anything religious for at least 4 years.

I dont think Science can ever prove its claims to evolution.. I dont see their evidence as proof.. just as an evolutionist will not see the proof in the bible as evidence.

I retire from this thread.. im getting bored

I.D wrote:I dont see their evidence as proof..

Oh? Why not?

I.D wrote:The bible told us the world was round thousands of years before man realised.

But the church told us it was flat and at the centre of the universe.
Then persecuted scientists like Galileo and Copernicus for saying otherwise.