chongjasmine

Do you believe in God?

155 posts in this topic

I just find the idea of some devine  being that created our universe in days hard to believe. I also just hate the idea that we're some special  species that God created to be made in his image also I just hate church sooooo those are my thoughts.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Spook's biggest fan said:

I just find the idea of some devine  being that created our universe in days hard to believe. I also just hate the idea that we're some special  species that God created to be made in his image also I just hate church sooooo those are my thoughts.

Note: days is not in our time, but in the Lord's. The original word means something along the lines of "Period", as in a period of time. As for the rest, he created everything.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair that sort of makes sense

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, EmulatonStromenkiin said:

Note: days is not in our time, but in the Lord's. The original word means something along the lines of "Period", as in a period of time. As for the rest, he created everything.

Meh. That's only a, singular, interpretation. The Hebrew word in question can mean period, but it can also mean day.

Basically, believe what you want, but there's no factual basis that one interpretation is more accurate "to the originalme meaning" than another. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Orlion Blight said:

Meh. That's only a, singular, interpretation. The Hebrew word in question can mean period, but it can also mean day.

Basically, believe what you want, but there's no factual basis that one interpretation is more accurate "to the originalme meaning" than another. 

Thank you for giving me more information regarding the translation. Now consider, we measure days by the spin cycle of our planet, but what does God measure his time by?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, EmulatonStromenkiin said:

Thank you for giving me more information regarding the translation. Now consider, we measure days by the spin cycle of our planet, but what does God measure his time by?

Well, Genesis 1:1 says "And there was evening and there was morning, the first day." I don't know why that'd be there if not to indicate that it was a literal day.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Nameless said:

Well, Genesis 1:1 says "And there was evening and there was morning, the first day." I don't know why that'd be there if not to indicate that it was a literal day.

well, yes, but not necessarily by our planet's time. Could very well be by another planet's time, who are we to say how God measures a day for Him?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Nameless said:

Well, Genesis 1:1 says "And there was evening and there was morning, the first day." I don't know why that'd be there if not to indicate that it was a literal day.

Oh boy, you're probably going to enjoy the discussion on this when I do my post in the general religious discussion thread on this, but in brief:

  • The days of creation are written as a poem with a lot of poetic strucuture, and poems are usually not supposed to be taken literally - they also aren't teaching there were seven days to create but rather showing the order within creation in its poetic structure - it also matches a temple dedication ceremony (the last part being putting an image of the god in the temple - Mankind was made in God's image)
  • Day seven is explicitly unending - all other days the narrative takes pains to ensure are listed as ending, whereas day seven is not - this point is continued in the Book of Hebrews
  • (Side point: Only day six and day seven are "the" day, the rest are just "day")
  • All the days together are explicitly referred to as one day in the very next section ("in the day God made Heaven and Earth" where Heaven is made on day 2 and Earth on day 3) showing the days are figurative
  • Day is also used elsewhere as a general term for a period of time in scripture, and there are scriptures which state time to God is both shorter and longer than people perceive it - the account is also from God's perspective

That is it in brief, I'll be elaborating more on this when I get the post and diagram done

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, EmulatonStromenkiin said:

well, yes, but not necessarily by our planet's time. Could very well be by another planet's time, who are we to say how God measures a day for Him?

What purpose does it serve for God to be talking about the days of some other planet? To intentionally confuse the readers of the Bible?

4 minutes ago, Ixthos said:

Oh boy, you're probably going to enjoy the discussion on this when I do my post in the general religious discussion thread on this, but in brief:

  • The days of creation are written as a poem with a lot of poetic strucuture, and poems are usually not supposed to be taken literally - they also aren't teaching there were seven days to create but rather showing the order within creation in its poetic structure - it also matches a temple dedication ceremony (the last part being putting an image of the god in the temple - Mankind was made in God's image)
  • Day seven is explicitly unending - all other days the narrative takes pains to ensure are listed as ending, whereas day seven is not - this point is continued in the Book of Hebrews
  • (Side point: Only day six and day seven are "the" day, the rest are just "day")
  • All the days together are explicitly referred to as one day in the very next section ("in the day God made Heaven and Earth" where Heaven is made on day 2 and Earth on day 3) showing the days are figurative
  • Day is also used elsewhere as a general term for a period of time in scripture, and there are scriptures which state time to God is both shorter and longer than people perceive it - the account is also from God's perspective

That is it in brief, I'll be elaborating more on this when I get the post and diagram done

I've seen this perspective before, and I don't agree with it. I'll wait for your post in the other thread to discuss it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Nameless said:

I've seen this perspective before, and I don't agree with it. I'll wait for your post in the other thread to discuss it.

Fair enough :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Nameless said:

Well, Genesis 1:1 says "And there was evening and there was morning, the first day." I don't know why that'd be there if not to indicate that it was a literal day.

I would say this. Until the 4th day, the term day cannot mean a 24 hr period. A day as we know it cannot exist without a sun which only starts existing on that particular day. There is a concept in Jewish thought that when god dictated the bible he used terms that people would understand. What would be the point of using a frame of reference that would not be meaningful to anyone except for god? Therefore terms like the outstretched arm of God or the anger of God are terms that are meant to be understandable on a particular level. The idea of a day can be understood in this light. It can be seen as a complete creative cycle as it were. A particular group of things came into being. A class of creation was formed and a complete cycle is done. Hence, a day.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EmulatonStromenkiin said:

Thank you for giving me more information regarding the translation. Now consider, we measure days by the spin cycle of our planet, but what does God measure his time by?

If God is outside of time, it doesn't measure time relative to itself

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Nathrangking said:

I would say this. Until the 4th day, the term day cannot mean a 24 hr period. A day as we know it cannot exist without a sun which only starts existing on that particular day. There is a concept in Jewish thought that when god dictated the bible he used terms that people would understand. What would be the point of using a frame of reference that would not be meaningful to anyone except for god? Therefore terms like the outstretched arm of God or the anger of God are terms that are meant to be understandable on a particular level. The idea of a day can be understood in this light. It can be seen as a complete creative cycle as it were. A particular group of things came into being. A class of creation was formed and a complete cycle is done. Hence, a day.

Yes, this. I completely agree.

11 minutes ago, Orlion Blight said:

If God is outside of time, it doesn't measure time relative to itself

I did not say that God is outside of time, just that we do not know how He measures time. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Nathrangking said:

I would say this. Until the 4th day, the term day cannot mean a 24 hr period. A day as we know it cannot exist without a sun which only starts existing on that particular day. There is a concept in Jewish thought that when god dictated the bible he used terms that people would understand. What would be the point of using a frame of reference that would not be meaningful to anyone except for god? Therefore terms like the outstretched arm of God or the anger of God are terms that are meant to be understandable on a particular level. The idea of a day can be understood in this light. It can be seen as a complete creative cycle as it were. A particular group of things came into being. A class of creation was formed and a complete cycle is done. Hence, a day.

Well, I'd argue that it can mean a 24 hour period, and there was a light/dark cycle, as God created light, as well as the concept of day and night, on the first day.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Nameless said:

Well, I'd argue that it can mean a 24 hour period, and there was a light/dark cycle, as God created light, as well as the concept of day and night, on the first day.

Why would you argue that if it does not make sense?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, EmulatonStromenkiin said:

Why would you argue that if it does not make sense?

What do you mean? God created day and night on the first day, and I see no reason to believe that he didn't set the length of day and night (for earth) at that time as well.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Nameless said:

What do you mean? God created day and night on the first day, and I see no reason to believe that he didn't set the length of day and night (for earth) at that time as well.

You said previously that it made no sense to be in that time frame, and I personally think that it is metaphorical.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, EmulatonStromenkiin said:

You said previously that it made no sense to be in that time frame, and I personally think that it is metaphorical.

I do not believe that I ever said that it makes no sense for creation to be in that time frame.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Nameless said:

I do not believe that I ever said that it makes no sense for creation to be in that time frame.

maybe that was someone else, sorry. I have run out of words to make productive arguments.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe in God and his son Jesus Christ.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

36 minutes ago, Nameless said:

What do you mean? God created day and night on the first day, and I see no reason to believe that he didn't set the length of day and night (for earth) at that time as well.

Well actually, it is not so easy to argue that the actual cycle of day and night was what was created on the first day especially if one reads it in the original Hebrew. Interpretation aside God says let there be light (which could well be the concept of light mind you) He then separates light and darkness (Again could be conceptually speaking as without a source of light darkness cannot exist.) Now to bring the text most relevant. וַיִּקְרָ֨א אֱלֹהִ֤ים ׀ לָאוֹר֙ י֔וֹם וְלַחֹ֖שֶׁךְ קָ֣רָא לָ֑יְלָה וַֽיְהִי־עֶ֥רֶב וַֽיְהִי־בֹ֖קֶר י֥וֹם אֶחָֽד׃- God calls light day and darkness night, It was morning it was evening one day (Mind you not the first day. The word used means one, it does not mean the first.) The text itself never says that he creates day and night. In this context, any word meaning to create is absent. It only ever says that he gives names to phenomena that will exist in the future. Those are what the actual words mean.

Edited by Nathrangking
3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Nathrangking said:

Well actually, it is not so easy to argue that the actual cycle of day and night was what was created on the first day especially if one reads it in the original Hebrew. Interpretation aside God says let there be light (which could well be the concept of light mind you) He then separates light and darkness (Again could be conceptually speaking as without a source of light darkness cannot exist.) Now to bring the text most relevant. וַיִּקְרָ֨א אֱלֹהִ֤ים ׀ לָאוֹר֙ י֔וֹם וְלַחֹ֖שֶׁךְ קָ֣רָא לָ֑יְלָה וַֽיְהִי־עֶ֥רֶב וַֽיְהִי־בֹ֖קֶר י֥וֹם אֶחָֽד׃- God calls light day and darkness night, It was morning it was evening one day (Mind you not the first day. The word used means one, it does not mean the first.) The text itself never says that he creates day and night. It only ever says that he gives names to phenomena that will exist in the future. Those are what the actual words mean.

You have amazing resources.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Nathrangking said:

Well actually, it is not so easy to argue that the actual cycle of day and night was what was created on the first day especially if one reads it in the original Hebrew. Interpretation aside God says let there be light (which could well be the concept of light mind you) He then separates light and darkness (Again could be conceptually speaking as without a source of light darkness cannot exist.) Now to bring the text most relevant. וַיִּקְרָ֨א אֱלֹהִ֤ים ׀ לָאוֹר֙ י֔וֹם וְלַחֹ֖שֶׁךְ קָ֣רָא לָ֑יְלָה וַֽיְהִי־עֶ֥רֶב וַֽיְהִי־בֹ֖קֶר י֥וֹם אֶחָֽד׃- God calls light day and darkness night, It was morning it was evening one day (Mind you not the first day. The word used means one, it does not mean the first.) The text itself never says that he creates day and night. It only ever says that he gives names to phenomena that will exist in the future. Those are what the actual words mean.

God created light and dark, separated them from each other, and called them day and night respectively. Then the Bible specifically states that there was evening and morning, implying that God made a normal day cycle (without the sun existing). And since God is already making a day/night cycle, it doesn't seem unreasonable that God made the cycle 24 hours.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Nameless said:

God created light and dark, separated them from each other, and called them day and night respectively. Then the Bible specifically states that there was evening and morning, implying that God made a normal day cycle (without the sun existing). And since God is already making a day/night cycle, it doesn't seem unreasonable that God made the cycle 24 hours.

It also doesn't seem unreasonable He didn't.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Nameless okay, I said I am going to cover this in the general religious discussion thread, but two things:

  • Day 1 can't have been 24 hours by the pure logic of it - light was created as the start of that act of creation and the LIGHT was called day; day can't mean 24 hour period. It, and its pair with day 4, are all about the creation of time and means of measuring time, but day is used in the first instance of the word in the scriptures to refer to light, and therefore if taken literally it means the 12 hour period;
  • If it is poetic then allusions to day and morning and evening are elements of its poetic structure; much like talking about one's love being a rose and referring to her thorns doesn't mean you really are talking about a rose and not a human

If you object to it being poetry - and I am going to make a strong case for it being poetry - why do you do so? It being poetic means evening and morning? Maybe - if this topic is going to be discussed further here - it might be best if you give our objections to the points I listed in my previous post here so I can mull them over in advance of the specific topic discussion.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.