From Amazon’s description of Perry’s book:
“In Religion for Realists, Perry argues that we need the scientific study of religion–the rational, data-driven analysis of religious life-now more than ever. Contrary to the fears of many religious Americans, the scientific study of religion only threatens empirical falsehoods, promulgated often to the benefit of charlatans and demagogues. And contrary to the silent hopes of many secular academics, religion doesn’t go away when you ignore it. Instead, interest groups fill the void to shape the public’s understanding of religious reality: sometimes well, usually poorly.”
Clearly God must have created them at some point as he created the whole universe, but not that they were made later than the earth. They appeared in the sky and governed day and night once visible and they would have been made with their purpose in mind.
It is inly in the newe king james that the word "then " is introduced:
" King James Bible
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
New King James Version
Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also."
Im pretty unimpressed with your theology there it faces significant challenges
I think rather than make blanket statements, we should at least look at the evidence
Genesis Chapter 1,
“God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.”
Now if you are really that keen on making the claim that the lights talked about here are not the sun and moon…given that the last sentence specifically says “He also made the stars”…you have zero chance of supporting your claim there.
we can be 100% certain that the context here is clearly in support of the notion of Sun and Moon!
There is no amount of scientific reasoning that can make the Genesis creation account timeline here fit with naturalism’s view that life cannot exist without the sun. The fact is, Creation was a miracle, not a scientific event. There is nothing scientific about the creation of energy and matter from nothing, about Christ coming back to life after death, His rising against gravity up into the sky…none of that is scientific…its all miracles.
let us see Genesis as the myth it represents and admire the wisdom it contains. And let us explain to those who delve in the lack of the lack of intelligence of God making plant life before the sun was shining to reconcile with their own lack of intelligence in the interpretation of the story and why it is not inconsistent with current knowledge about the Earth’s history.
It is the same with evolution. Just because atheists would want us to believe it is without purpose and a random chance process should should not force you to look at it this way. its purpose is the propagation of life in adverse circumstances and it is a highly controlled process, controlled via a feedback mechanism called survival fitness, e.g. being usefull to creation
if you describe the production of a motorcar and you put the engine it in at the end you would clearly conclude that that is when it was built. Guess you don’t have a career in project planning.
Creation is a poetic description of reality that makes sense of it to hold an inherently coherent worldview. If you claim that God created life or energy you believe in a god that is void of life and has no energy. That is not logically coherent to me
an interesting choice of illustration there Marvin because here’s the thing…
I have a degree majoring in industrial technology and design and ironically enough, marketing and project management are both units i studied in that degree.
Given that I am also trained as a teacher, curriculum development and planning form a huge part of that area of expertise (so these that)
Car engines - i am intimately familiar with because on the one hand my own father was an aviation technician (engines) then automotive diesel mechanic and on the other, I ran my own small earthmoving business for about 15 years…and in that time have spent a lot of time under the hood with engines pulled apart (I’m a man who fixes most things himself)
So given the above, i am not offended by the above because its directed at an individual whos academic credentials and lives experiences shield against any such notion. Therefore, in direct response to your last sentence…“guess you don’t have a career in project planning”…
i will simply interpret in as… God clearly “wouldn’t” have done it the way its written in the Bible because it doesnt make scientific or logical sense given our lifes experiences right?
That argument is fine except for a few illustrations that highlight the significant problem any Christian faces:
God created all energy and matter from nothing (scientifically impossible for an intelligent mind to do apparently)
Christ (God) managed to re birth himself into the womb of an earthly women who had never had sex
Christ apparently healed a leaper, a blind man, a man who couldn’t walk…not over time, but instantly.
Christ was killed, a sword thrust into his side to ensure he was dead, buried in the ground for 3 days, and somehow managed to resurrect Himself from that death, roll a huge stone away from the entrance of the tomb in which he lay (from the inside) and disappear into the darkness of the early hours of the Sunday morning.
After 6 weeks, whilst out one day talking with his disciples, Christ suddenly began to rise up into the sky and disappeared behind clouds, never to be seen in the flesh again by these men
The religious zealot Saul, with murderous intent in his mind, whilst travelling down the road to find Christians and kill them, found himself face to face with Christ, fell down to the ground and lost his eyesight for a few days until he presented himself to the house of another man in that town who healed him!
At the Second Coming, millions of dead and rotting corpses are going to rise up out of the ground and meet living people in the sky and head off into outer space where life cannot survive!
There is not a single element of the entire gospel that is true scientifically…its all impossible. Given that, your engine illustration is also useless because none of this (The Christian Gospel) is rational according to modern science!!!
It isn’t remotely related to “current knowledge about the Earth’s history” because it isn’t remotely about science – that it why it is “not inconsistent” with such knowledge. Trying to make it consistent with science throws away the possibility of “see[ing] Genesis as the myth it represents” or discovering “the wisdom it contains”.
Im getting a little fed up with the word games and re-ordering games that go on in an attempt to discredit the biblical account. Its written the way it is written…either accept it or sod off. I’m a bit tired of being politically correct to those who just seek to find workarounds for impossible theology and doctrines. It becomes tiresome after a while and certainly insulting to the very idea that humans have intelligence.
Now that I’ve vented the above, let me just set you straight…
the reason for the relevance of the what is because of the context. His original claim was “there is no where in the bible where it says God created the Sun and Moon” (you clearly missed that part!)
Ten times at least as what is gained if it is treated as history. You have to let Genesis be the ancient literature it is to get the wisdom from it.
And you have an amazing ability to not respond to the actual thought someone presents even when it is in plain language – your post totally missed what he was talking about. Instead you resort to your locked-in mantra of Adam’s doctrine vs. science:
Marvin is making an argument based on the text, and you fail to even notice that.
READ the last part of my response to your post… (quoted again below)
the reason for the relevance of the what is because of the context. His original claim was “there is no where in the bible where it says God created the Sun and Moon” (you clearly missed that part!)
I think a lot of things “baffle” you. The fact that you rarely quote scripture in support of your claims is evidence that bible theology is baffling to you. I often wonder if the reason why you appear to be so resistant to apologetics is because it baffles you!
Instead of just posting almost meaningless quotes…can you at least provide some context so that readers here have a flaming clue what on earth you are going on about? Give some examples that can be considered in response to your criticisms. In this case, what do us YECers go to great efforts to make true scientifically? How does that contradict our own criticisms of your world view?
Unless you do that, this descends into “tit for tat” nonsense!
Nice attempt there, but there’s nothing about Christ in creationism as you present it, there’s only an attempt to force the actual Creation account to be scientific.
In short, you have so little respect for the people here that you don’t bother to respond to what they’ve actually said – you think our statements are “SH$%”, which suggests that also describes your opinion of us. On top of the fact that you regularly repeat the same lies about people here this says nothing good about your faith.
Who is trying to “discredit the biblical account”? There are only a few logical possibilities here: first, you are so arrogant that to you anything which isn’t written exactly the way you would say it must be wrong; second, you are so bad at reading comprehension that you don’t realize you aren’t responding to us; third, you don’t car what anyone has actually said, you just use it as an opportunity to insult people and type your same mantras; fourth, you actually do comprehend what people write and purposely lie about what they have said.
That’s what I keep telling you, but you refuse to honor the actual text of the scriptures.
No, it wasn’t – so again we’re back to the logical possibilities above.
Your example in these last couple of posts is such that if I were not a Christian and you were the only example I had, my response would be “Forget it – if that’s what a Christian is supposed to be, I want nothing to do with it; I’d rather actually listen to people with respect instead of treating them like ‘SH$%’”.
Either a failure of reading comprehension, a total lack of respect, or another lie – see my post above for more detail. Oh – and go back and read what he actually said, and then apologize for misrepresenting his point.
