I've been reading the NT from the Greek text, so this is not a concern. There is, of course, debate as to the manuscripts themselves (i.e. which ones do we use.) But, the NT we have today is based on the manuscripts that were most accepted. Much of the difference in the manuscripts is only significant to fine tuning theology and does not affect the overall message.

OK - this answers my question.

For ADPiZXAlum - there are subtle issues that truly literal traslation would fail to account for. References to the 'four corners of the earth' require some sects to believe in a flat earth. This is not necessarily what I'm referring to, but is an example of the concept. A fairly meaningless example would be identifying a circle "10 cubits across, and 30 around".

I'm not saying the Bible is a sea of contradictions - some have, and they wind up relying extensively on examples like that above - so no need to turn the offended crank. Instead, I'm saying that faux-literal translation of the Bible runs into serious issues (and it appears that jeni has addressed these, for herself, above) - regardless of personal faith.

Last time I checked, Genesis is part of the OT.

I didn't say that I haven't studied Genesis and the discussions surrounding this book. I just said that my current focus has been the Greek NT. When I become more familiar with the Hebrew language, I'll be better equipped to discuss the nuances of the Genesis story. For now, I will comment only on what I know - the genres of the OT and NT - which does provide me with a foundation to discuss the OT.

KSig RC if you are interested in gaining some further insight into the some of the earliest books of the Bible (OT) I'd suggest doing a little reading up of Babylonian myths - I think youl'll find some interesting corelations between early Bibilical stories/accounts/myths and the early myths of the Fertile Crescent.

Sorry what translation are you referencing here? I couldn't find the word REPLENISH or reference to a similar term in any of the translations I looked at - seek dominion over, or subdue yes... be fruitful and multiply/fill the earth yes... but no REPLENISH.

First Law of Thermodynamics: Matter cannot be created or destroyed--it just changes from one form into another...

It is not a matter of belief to scientists. We can prove it to be true with mathematics and physics--maybe I can't but, I know some of the Eigen values from Real Variable Euclidian mathematicians can...

I guess the scientists are saying there is no "start time" to all of this existence... When did humans start to exist relative to a God is not a question we ask--not because we don't believe it, we just cannot test it out... But we can test out relative relationships of DNA in paradigm map...

As you progress in your studies--even if you remain a Christian--you still have to do some research of other religions. The Aztecs and Mayans had that life came in cycles... Mainly their high priests practiced these calculations... They came up with the math concept of something beyond infinity... I can't calculated it, but there is a formula for it...

Then how do you come up with the concept of P? Those were the Egyptian mathematicians.

So we are using their calculations still to this day and they have not varied... That is where the scientists get a "relative point of reference" of a start time... But within exact certainty--well, there is a calculation for that too, but I cannot do it...

I have a somewhat related question.

What is the Creationist viewpoint on other planets or the way or solar system is made up?

When we studied Genesis in high school, the Earth was described as a dome with a cover of some sort to protect us from the water chilling above. And the sun, moon and stars hung from the dome. Didn't say anything about other planets and galaxies. It was very Earth-centric (and I've got a really bad sketch of it in one of my high school notebooks.)

But are there those that consider this aspect of the Bible as a literal make up of "outer" space?

I only ask because I was really into astronomy as a kid.

Speaking of my high school theo classes, we had a very interesting conversation about the way our Bibles were translated. I guess I will ask the question for of the scholars out there is when did the concept of a day = 24 hours come about? And what is considered a "day" in the Bible? Do those that believe in Creationism believe God created the Earth and life in 168 hours? Could a day meant a series of years? Weeks? Centuries? I mean this was written so long ago that "their" concept of a day could be completely different then ours.

So perhaps maybe the Earth IS a lot older than the Bible says based on our present opinions of time, but maybe it isn't. The Catholic Litergical Year is based off of lunar cycles, hense Easter being different every year. Perhaps their "days" were longer... or shorter.

I have studied a bit about the numbers used in the Bible. (Such as 7 being a perfect number and 6 being an imperfect number.) And for that reason, I consider the creation story to be one of those metaphors that MysticCat was talking about. I know that God created Earth all that it features, but I have to look beyond the constraint of "7 days and nights." Something about using 7 in anything would imply that it's perfect and is a direct association of God. It's a lot simpler to say he created for 6 days and rested on the 7th, than say some other insanely large number associated with 7 and assume that reader wishes to do the math.

And I've gone on for too long.
:)
But I really am curious about the whole planet and day thing.

Re: Bible "time" vs our "time"
 

Does anyone remember the episode of The Simpsons where Lisa creates a universe/society of her own out of a lost tooth and a can of cola? Over a course of a week or month (not sure what it was. I haven't seen the episode in a very long time), the "world" went from primative times to the producer's imagination of the future.

The Authorized King James Version

1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

but "replenish" is not in the New Revised Standard Version. The NRSV says:

"Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea..."

So which one is right? The NRSV was the Bible I used for my religion classes in middle school, and the version we used in our daily Chapel services.

Wll, I'm not going to tell you which bible to use or which one is right. Earlier I made the comment that many people believe that there is one "right" translation of the bible. There are some who believe that the New American Standards is the best because it most closely follows the "originals", most Southern Baptist Churches use the NIV, most Catholics use another version that contain the apocrypha, believing that these books are also part of the inspired scriptures, yet not part of other versions, some believe that the King James Version is the best English translation. You are right, the NRSV does not have the word replenish. Your beliefs and such would probably stem from which version you use.

Many words/verses have different meanings across translations. As a result I can see how many argue that there are discrepencies and/or contradictions in the Bible, although I truly believe there are none.

For example:
John 3:16 is one of the most well known verses in the world.
In the KJV is reads: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosover believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

If you look at the NIV, only begotten is replaced with one and only.

There is a HUGE difference between the meaning of only begotten son and one and only son. Example: A man and woman adopt a child thinking that they will never have a child of their own, and later the woman becomes pregnant. That second child is their 'only begotten child' but not their one and only child.
This may not seem like a huge deal, but there are many who look for discrepencies in the scriptures to claim that it is not the true word of God. When comparing John 3:16 in a version that reads "one and only son" to verses such as John 1:12, Romans 8:14, 1 John 3:1-2, that use the term sons of God, it seems to be a contradiction. Some would ask, how can God have many "sons" if he has one and only son?

And case in point with our discussion here, replenish the earth and fill the eart have two different meanings, very similar, but different.

Anyway, that is just one of the many arguments I've heard about the question over different translations.

I don't quite understand this question. God created the universe.

Quote:

When we studied Genesis in high school, the Earth was described as a dome with a cover of some sort to protect us from the water chilling above. And the sun, moon and stars hung from the dome. Didn't say anything about other planets and galaxies. It was very Earth-centric (and I've got a really bad sketch of it in one of my high school notebooks.)

The Genesis explanation is illustrated by current scientific understanding. And, the Bible is Earth-centric because it is a message to humans.

Quote:

Speaking of my high school theo classes, we had a very interesting conversation about the way our Bibles were translated. I guess I will ask the question for of the scholars out there is when did the concept of a day = 24 hours come about? And what is considered a "day" in the Bible? Do those that believe in Creationism believe God created the Earth and life in 168 hours? Could a day meant a series of years? Weeks? Centuries? I mean this was written so long ago that "their" concept of a day could be completely different then ours.

This is a scholarly question. You're right about the length of a day which is why there is debate over Youth Earth/Old Earth, progressive creation, etc.

I am by no means an expert and I want to make sure that is clear!

In my RCIA (basically conversion to Catholicism classes), the question of the "day"/168 hours came up. The priest told us that the original word used was more closely defined as an "epoch" or "era", meaning some time period. So, it wasn't necessarily seven days as we think of it today.

I don't know if this is going way too far out on a limb, but...

For those of you who believe in God -- what exactly IS God? Does God have a physical presence? Where is God?

There's this obscure but awesome movie called Vernon, Florida and in it, this guy is talking about God and (forgive me if I get it wrong because I haven't seen it for a while) a conversation he had with someone who didn't believe in God. He asks the guy how such and such could be and the guy said, "Well, that just happened." So the guy in the movie says to take "that just happened" and call it God instead.

Would that at all jive with your concept of God? If not, why?

Apocrypha? In the Catholic Bible :rolleyes: I think someone's been misleading you a we bit... But seriosuly I wish the Apocrypha was included... it'd surely add some spice to religion class - although I'm not sure the trade off of having another 28+ books is worth it... but as far as I know there is little to no difference between the major Bibles other than translation (and creative editting).

Looking at the older Latin texts, trying to find Replenish, I couldn't find a reference to it... so maybe it was added in during the KJV as a nod to Mercantalist beliefs?


Oh in case you are interested in Apocrypha... this website has a nice catalog of them:
http://www.comparative-religion.com/...ity/apocrypha/

I'm not sure exactly what your point is here. Again, not trying to be confrontational, but what are you trying to show me? I know what the apocrypha is, and I'm sorry, perhaps it was a wee bit misleading to say "most." However the first place I ever HEARD about the apocrypha was in religion class at the Catholic high school I went to. All of the bibles they used contained the apocrypha. Most Catholic bibles I have ever looked at contain the apocrypha. What exactly are you saying? Below is a link to the New American Bible online. That is a version commonly used by Catholics. This site is the United States Council of Catholic Bishops. The books listed contain the apocrypha. They are neatly tucked away in the OT, not seperated. Tobit, Maccabees, Sirach, Baruch, etc. When I clicked on the link to Sirach this was part of the introduction: "Though not included in the Hebrew Bible after the first century A.D., nor accepted by Protestants, the Book of Sirach has always been recognized by the Catholic Church as divinely inspired and canonical. The Foreword, though not inspired, is placed in the Bible because of its antiquity and importance." Here is the link:

New American Bible

ETA: Hey Cooper, what's the weather like in Canada? I'm moving there in a month.

To my understanding, many Catholics (if not all) have a slightly different Bible. For example, what Protestants know as Psalm 23 "The Lord's my Shepherd....." is known as Psalm 22 for (many) Catholics. That's pretty much all I know about differences as I left Catholic school too early to study the Bible in depth.

Where in Canada are you moving to? It was a little on the cool side in southern/central Ontario for the past few days, but temperatures are getting warmer. We're going to have summer-like weather soon. :)

I'm moving to Montreal! I'm so excited! It's a long stinking way from home, but it'll be a great experience. HAHA you are going to love this, I'm actually going up there to do some missionary-type work. There is a missionary in Montreal that our church supports. I am going to help their church start a private school (I'm a teacher). As I mentioned earlier, it's probably a good thing for me to be getting out of the public school system! How far away from Montreal is Ontario?

Hey valkyrie - This is the question. It is what separates sects, denominations, etc. There are those who believe strictly in the God of the Bible...even among these people, arguments over theology exist but, in essence, the person of God is the same.

For those who brings outside texts (and other ideas) to their reading of the Bible, or do not follow the Bible consistently, God is a completely different person.

As for your last question, I would say God is the cause of what non-believers say is "that just happened." But, I wouldn't say that when things just happen, I call it God.

Here's the problem I see. Let's say we're all together in a black-walled room. Someone comes in and starts talking to everyone. Some people completely ignore the person and refuse to hear anything that he (or those who listen to him) says. They even put sunglasses on so it's even harder to see him.

The divide becomes greater and greater. Then the person - the one who came in and started talking to people - flips on a light switch and all the people who were in conversation with him see that the room is in fact red-walled; they just thought it was black-walled because the light was low. These people are thrilled and realize what was going on all along.

But the people with the sunglasses on don't see much change (they're aware that the other people are a lot more agitated but don't know why).

No matter how much the person tries to talk to the people with sunglasses, they just get more and more irritated because they don't see anything. It gets worse when the other people in the room - the ones who don't have sunglasses on - run around telling them all about the red room and a door they've found. The people with sunglasses begin to believe that the others have lost their minds.

Sometimes, someone gets...I don't know...a piece of cake. The people without the sunglasses had watched as the person gave the piece of cake to whomever. But, the people with the sunglasses didn't see the person at all and wonder where the cake came from.

hijack

Ontario is a province. To get right to the border, it may only take you about an hour.

Montreal to Ottawa is about 3 hours and Montreal to Toronto is about 7 hours.

/hijack

That's right, I knew that!! I wasn't thinking. I will actually be in Ottawa in July so I'm looking forward to seeing different parts of the country!

Going to the "City of Churches" (sorry, old nickname) for missionary work?

Montreal to Quebec City or Ottawa are nice passable day (if you leave early enough) or weekend trips... both are a blast during the summer. If your in Ottawa during July, look into the Government's Experimental Farm across the canal from Carleton - should be Tulip Festival; the Market's always busy... and of course check out the Changing of the Guard and the Governor General's House (I used to be one of the guys in the red jacket and black fur hat ;) ) - if you go to the GG's take the time to wander the grounds and toru the house - don't just stop at the gate and take pictures of the Guards or the PM's house across the street. Quebec City during the summer is also great - stick to the Old City and you'll feel like your in Northern France - with the language, architecture, art & antique chops, cafes, and relaxed attitude.

One thing to get used to in Canada is that everyone discusses distance in time not actual distance - driving, flight, train, walking, etc. (as evidenced by Lady Pi Phi's answer)

Finally come dressed for the heat - the summer is hot up here too... and can be very humid.

Umm, the Tulip Festival's in May. Going on right now, actually.

www.tulipfestival.ca

Thanks for the advice!! I've heard it's just beautiful and I can not wait to see the sights and especially all the old cathedrals. I don't know if you can really call what I will be doing missionary work. Our church supports a missionary in Montreal and I will be helping his church start a private school. So, not really evangelical type work....but it should be great.

I read your post, and realized I needed to do a little studying on how to answer your question properly. I came across this website that I personally found interesting.

http://www.carm.org/seek/God.htm

The question "Who is God?" is a good question. It is better than asking "What is God?" This is because God exists, created us, loves us, is concerned for our being, desires to provide for us, and sent the Son to redeem us. If we were to ask "What is God?" we might be tempted to say that God is the infinite being, the creator, a presence, or something like that. In some respect, this would be true. But the first question brings us closer to understanding more of who God really is in His character and His love for us as revealed in the Bible.

The Bible teaches us that in all existence, from all eternity, there has been and always will be only one God. God was never created, is completely loving, completely just, completely holy, completely merciful, and that He desires the best for us. God is holy and He can have nothing to do with sin as the Bible says, "His eyes are too pure to look upon evil," (Hab. 1:13). This does not mean that God cannot see what someone does that is wrong. It is a way of describing how holy God is. God cannot sin. He is perfect.

In Christianity, God is a Trinity. This means that God is three persons, not three gods. Technically, the doctrine of the Trinity states that in the one God is the person of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Each is not the same person is the other; yet there are not three gods but one. This is similar in analogy to the nature of time. Time is past, present, and future. The past is not the same as the present, which is not the same as the future. But, there are not three times. There is only one thing called time.
_____________________

The website goes on further, but, I didn't want to go on and on.

Edited for spacing. Also, I can't spell.

Just a question?

Who really gives a shit?

OMG, all of the do rightousness is killing me.:p

We are living, we do certain things that Animals cant. But Animals still screw and reproduce.:rolleyes:

I dont peck some women I Would like to as Birds!;) Oh, would we lay eggs?

I wanted to point out that this is a conservative position on God that is held by those (like me) who model themselves after the 1st century church. My response to valkyrie goes into a little more with the question.

BTW - I have much love for CARM!!!

Questions are being asked and answered in here. Do you have a question?

I never saw carm.org before - def going to bookmark that for some reading! Thanks, Conniebama!!!!

What an insightful contribution from our trusty moderator. :)

Your god wouldn't be proud of you trying to belittle another "creation" by using phrases such as "scientist wannabe." When someone doesn't take YOUR beliefs as FACT do you try to hurt them with words? You should pray, someone should pray for you, bad person you.

On a serious note, I have never ever heard of any public school teatching Evolution as "fact" as you seem to continue to go on and on about. When I was in school it was presented to me as "The Theory of Evolution." As it is in countless textbooks which are used in countless classrooms around the country. How does theory translate to fact?

And, I appreciate that evolution is honestly called a theory. My concern is that it is considered the only valid theory when it is not. So, when evolution is taught alone, with no suggestion that it could be incorrect, the implication is that it is, indeed, fact.

If parents wish to have their children learn the "theory" of Creationism, they should send them to private school. If they can't afford it, teach it to them at home. Learn it in church....etc, etc.

I apprecaite your opinion but our public school system applies the study of sciences, not religions (to an almost certain extent). If we open the door to teaching creationism, we must also open the door to other theories.

Are we willing to spend the tax dollars needed to hire more teachers, expand schools and classrooms, purchase more textbooks, all of which would be required to adapt to such a change? I just don't see the vision.

I'm not suggesting that evolution and creation be taught. Earlier in this thread, I commented that it would be useful and fair for textbooks to have just one chapter on origin theories - to include the most widely held theories, not only evolution and creation. I consider evolution to be as scientific as creation. Origin theories cannot be considered purely a matter of science.


ETA: There would be no considerable change in teaching. As for the cost of textbooks, the government already has a schedule for providing updates to textbooks. This addition would simply come at the next update.

My suggestion does not change the study of science, as I've pointed out before.

1st - I always find it interesting that people judge me more then God judges me. I am just a "rotten" sinner saved by grace.

2nd - I had no idea what your career choice was and for all I knew/know you are just a scientist wannabe. Just because people use some scientific words doesn't mean they are a scientist. I am a restaurant owner and a millionaire wannabe. So, please don't take offense to anything I might or might not say. (As I am sure you didn't) However, anyone can pray for me anytime they want, cause, I need it.

A school or program doesn't have to say "Evolution is a fact" to teach it as fact. For instance. I was watching the Discovery Channel the other day, when they stated something like - Paleozoic era - 300 million years ago amphibians and first reptiles on roamed the land. They didn't say "some scientist believe that . . . . " They just made the statement as fact. How is that OK? (scientifically speaking). I am not asking them to read Genesis to public school kids I am saying that they should "effectively" teach an unproven theory as such.

I can assure you that I'm not a scientist or a scientist wannabe. But the context you said that in sure didn't seem to come off as "maybe you are trying to be a scientist" but more like "flex your muscles you big bad scientist you." But I could truly care either way, I just wanted to poke at you.


Regarding evolution and fact, again, I have never been told by any teacher in any school that this theory is indeed being taught as fact. Im' sure it could be taught as fact, if one so believed, just as much as certain people believe creationism is "fact."

I mean, if I think Santa Claus is real, or the Tooth Fairy is real, or that Big Bird is a real, seven foot tall, bright yellow bird, that would be fact to me. In my experience, more people that believe the theory of creationism believe it as fact, while certain others may view evolution as fact, many that I have known still approach it as an "unproven theory."

We could get into deep philosophy, epistemology , or even the metaphysical but I think certain people would be lost. And I'd rather drink the beer I just bought.

Toodles!

Woah... hold on... the Discovery Channel talking about amphibians and reptiles 300 MYA would be discussing other sciences - Geology & Physics... so now those sciences in addition to Evolutionary Theory are now in question? Is all science questionable because it may contridict Bibilical scriptures? Talking about creatures living 300 MYA involves Nuclear Physics - radiological dating; Geology - the dating and age of rocks in which discoverys have been found, stratification.

Let's change focus for a minute . . .


Can anyone provide physical and scientific evidence AGAINST evolution?

The problem is that the same evidence that supports macroevolution/microevolution supports creation/adaptation. We have to remember that this line of study is fairly recent in the whole scheme of things. It's not that people before us were gullible idiots...

I find it very interesting that so many Initiated Creation stories are so similar.