The Origin of Man

[Rooster7]

Firstpusk,

 

Thanks for the reference.

 

kwc57,

 

But the idea was that regardless of how they raise the child and what they teach it, it was God who was going to make the decision whether the child could be saved or condemned.

 

Well, too some degree, I agree with that statement. I prayed for my child's salvation before she was born. I prayed that God would give her a believer's heart. I prayed that if she didn't have a believer's heart that He would change it. A person can know all of the right theology, do and say all of the right things, but those things do not bring about salvation. Basically, these things are works. It's God's grace that enables a person to believe with his heart that Christ died for his sins. Alas, not everyone responds. Why? I don't have all of the answers. Nor does God expect me to know all of the answers. Unfortunately, that puts in a bad position sometimes to convince others. But then again, if someone comes to Christ, it won't be because I did something, it will be because God revealed the truth to him through his Holy Spirit.

 

[OldGreyEagle]

The fact the bible doesnt mention female offspring of Eve doesnt bother me as women were not as highly regarded as men in those times. (or in some troops today, but that is another thread, and this is only said in jest)

 

I understand that God can do anything he wishes. And thats the hardest thing about religion, sometimes you just have to suspend human rationality and just "believe"

 

[Rooster7]

I can understand questioning proposed theories by men about God, or even someone's interpretation of the Bible. However, as to whether or not God could or could not do something, that never enters my mind. God is God. How can I believe in God (as creator of heaven and earth, all powerful, all knowing, etc.), yet question the feasibility of an act, or a purported act, by Him because it defied science? God created science. He can bend the rules or even rewrite them.

[NJCubScouter]

OGE says:

 

I understand that God can do anything he wishes. And thats the hardest thing about religion, sometimes you just have to suspend human rationality and just "believe"

 

Well, or you can start your own religion, or your own denomination, or your own sect or movement within a religion, to conform to what you actually do believe. Or you can add books to the Bible or subtract them, or translate them to fit your beliefs, or your political agenda, or whatever. People have been doing that for thousands of years. Why are there so many different Christian churches? Why are there at least four major "movements" within Judaism with many variations and gradations within those movements? Why is there a Catholic and a Protestant version of the same Bible, with different books? I won't try the answer the question. I think some of the implications are obvious, especially for "Biblical literalism." But I'll leave others to draw their own conclusions.

 

I believe that these discussions of the Bible and its literal truth are important, because there are some in society who would like to force the rest of society to live by a literal reading of the Bible. That is what is behind creationism. Creationists want public school children to be taught that the contents of scrolls passed down from antiquity are more likely, or just as likely, to contain scientific truth as real biological science. Other Biblical literalists (well, probably the same ones) will point to a few passages from the same scrolls, whose exact meaning depends on which translation you believe, to justify hatred of gays. If people would just stick to their books and worship in their own places, I would not care in the slightest whether people regard a book as literal truth, allegory, fiction or anything else. But some of them don't. Some of them try to impose their beliefs on my, my children and my society.

 

And I feel I have to try, in my own little way, to stop them. Pointing out the inconsistencies and anomalies in the Bible, and the inconsistencies between the Bible and the physical world, is just one way of doing that. I also believe that God can do anything, but the question is, what HAS he done. I don't see God as being constrained by the description of his acts in any particular book.

 

 

[littlebillie]

"The fact the bible doesnt mention female offspring of Eve doesnt bother me as women were not as highly regarded as men in those times."

 

So, if the Bible is the given Word of God, does that mean God also holds women in lower esteem? Or if it's the inspired Word, does this mean that the men who wrote got some of their personal feelings in there as well?

[packsaddle]

OGE, I liked your comment, "And thats the hardest thing about religion, sometimes you just have to suspend human rationality and just "believe"". It is represents the strength of faith. And I believe that it will always play a role in mankind. Science continues to advance in its own realm, however, and vigilance is needed to insure that we recognize its legitimacy.

 

DeMann mentioned a very good example of one of the pithy questions that science still wrestles with, I am not sure it is addressed biblically at all. Gravity. Even if we understood the physics necessary to explain gravity in contemporary scientific terms, I doubt that we would, nevertheless, KNOW what gravity is, only what its apparent effect is.

 

Way back as a beginning biologist, I noticed the difficulty of working with gravity in a simple experiment to study its effect. Knowing that there probably is no place in the universe that does not experience gravity, I grew sunflowers in a centrifuge to simulate gravity greater than earth's. Actually about 100 times greater. I received a mediocre grade because, as the professor pointed out, the force I subjected the plants to was not gravity at all, just another force that seemed similar in effect. I still feel some shame at the attempt.

 

In my troop are boys with Buddhist, Jewish, Catholic, Islamic, and many flavors of Protestant backgrounds. Where they would tend to disagree greatly if asked for their beliefs, for example, on creation, most of them would agree on the existence and effects of gravity, for that matter other scientific matters. In this way science can bring people with highly diverse backgrounds together. They would have no idea, however, what gravity actually IS. Yet we take it for granted, every one of us, that this 'gravity' will work constantly for or against us in our labors. We know neither its origin nor, really, its mechanism and yet we accept it and use it because to some limited extent we can predict its effect scientifically. Some would call this a type of faith. If all faith was as open to new observations and discussion (as it seems to be in this forum), it would be a good thing. Nice example DeMann.

[DeMann]

If man evolved, then there is no afterlife. Or, if there is, then God is not necessary, for either the here-and-now, or to obtain that afterlife. Evolution excludes the necessity for God, and thus, man does not need him, any where or anytime. To believe in both God and evolution is to attempt to hold both sides of the fence, neither one being sufficient for the holder of those beliefs.

 

I apologize for my absence. Work called, and I had to go. I will now attempt to answer Littlebillie and his question on Aramaic.

 

 

[DeMann]

Littlebillie,

I really need to see your Bible. In mine (Revised King James Version), the words ages and eons are not found in the book of Genesis.

age is indeed used, but only ten times. seybah is used 4 times, and means grey, grey haired, or old age. yowm is used 77 times, but 5 times it comes from a root word refering to the hot time of a day, or to be hot during that time, or to mean a season. In the Chaldee language, it refers to a day as we know it. Here, it appears to mean a period of time such as a year. In context, it appears to refer to old age in a person by being a period of time such as a year (died being stricken with yowm ((old age, lots of years, etc.))..).

 

yowm is used and interpreted as a day as we know it as well. As such, it appears 72 times in the book of Genesis. The description of the creation of the world uses the word in the context of actual days as we know them. This same word is used identically in other OT passages, such as Ex. 20:8,remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy, vs. 10But the seventh day is the Sabbath

 

layil (or leyl)is used for night, and appears 28 times in the book of Genesis. Its definition is literal night, but can also mean the time of midnight. ereb is used once in Gen. 49:27, and it can mean dusk or late evening, but here is translated as night as well. Night is also a definition for this word.

 

This is why I, and many others, see the formation of the earth as literal days. The words and phrases used are the same as used in places that require us to see them as actual days.

 

It is very important that when you read the Bible, you understand how and where what you are reading is coming from. Some translations are there to make the wording easier to follow, and there are some that just plain rewrite the thing. I personally like the Revised King James Version, the New American Standard, or New International Version. Those will get you where you need to be. I have personally seen one printed by a particular religion that has just plainly re-written the actual text. That is scary. The best way to understand what the Bible says is to learn to read the original language, and then read it for yourself. But..since most of us dont have the time for that, it is best that we depend on the next best thing, an English version that wont steer us wrong. Yes, parts are difficult to understand, but that is ok. There is more than enough to keep the average person busy with the parts that are easy to understand.

 

 

 

[DeMann]

here's an interesting thought:

 

until 1492, mankind thought that the earth was flat and nothing was under it. however, several thousand years ago, a man named Job said that God formed the earth and hung it on nothing (26:7). In fact, in the next verse, he even told us that the waters are bound up in clouds..... is that scientific?

 

Now, if I can just find that passage that tells us that the water rises to the clouds, rains upon the mountain, and follows the river to the sea to begin again....Is that one in Psalms, or Job also? hmmm......

 

 

[NJCubScouter]

This first line is written after the rest of the post. I cannot believe that DeMann's comment has prompted me to write what I have written below, especially the later parts. I can't believe I wrote it at all. But it is what I really think, and it has some relationship to the thread, so here it is.

 

DeMann says:

 

If man evolved, then there is no afterlife. Or, if there is, then God is not necessary, for either the here-and-now, or to obtain that afterlife. Evolution excludes the necessity for God, and thus, man does not need him, any where or anytime. To believe in both God and evolution is to attempt to hold both sides of the fence, neither one being sufficient for the holder of those beliefs.

 

To which I respond: Why? (I was going to say "why?" to each separate sentence, but I realized that would sound too much like every 3-year-old in the world.)

 

I have not had time to substantively participate in much of the discussion in this thread, but I have been struck by several statements of the type repeated above. "If you believe this, you have to believe that," or "If you don't believe this, you can't believe that." Who says? Your statements may be correct if you believe in the literal truth of every statement in the Bible, but then you're just assuming your conclusion. A common fallacy in debate, but a fallacy nevertheless.

 

I can assure you that there are many people in the world who believe in both God and evolution. It may not be "God" as you define him (or it), it may not be God as related in the Christian/Jewish Bible at all, but it is God nevertheless. There are many ways to believe in God. There does not have to be an afterlife for there to be a God. We do not have to "need" God for there to be a God. God does not even have to know the planet Earth exists, or to have specifically created this planet, for there to be a God. The Bible and the values contained in it do not need to have been handed down by God, or even have been inspired by God, for there to be a God. (And that's not to say that most of those values are not good values. I actually feel better about humanity, believing that it was people who came up with "Thou shalt not kill," etc., rather than God.)

 

I have never really talked about my own deep-down personal religious beliefs in this forum, but I guess the above is a hint. I believe that almost everything is possible, but that also means that I don't specifically believe in too many things, other than what I can see. The fact that we are here means that something beyond our ability to comprehend created us, or something that led to something (...) that led to us. That something is God. I also think there is a natural order to the Earth and the living things and other things in, on and around it that has some spiritual nature.

 

So what does that make me? A believer in Native American religion? A Druid? A Wiccan? A Buddhist? A deist, a la Thomas Jefferson? Or maybe just a guy who's still a confused Jewish kid? (Part of Judaism is that God is incorporeal and amorphous, has not walked on the Earth nor sent any of his relatives to do so, and will not necessarily ever do so. Of course, another part of Judaism consists of direct quotes from God as reported in the Bible, but I reserve the right to question the attribution.) Or maybe parts of all of the above?

 

Appropros to both this impromptu declaration of belief (?) and the 13-page thread on atheists in Scouting, when I was an older teenager, I thought I was an atheist. I guess I didn't feel too strongly about it, because every week I said the Scout Oath and Law (and led them when I was SPL), and every day in school I said the Pledge, "under God" and all. When I was on campouts, and walking somewhere by myself, I would sometimes feel something spiritual, but I didn't know exactly what it was, so I figured it might be God. I didn't go around telling many people I was an atheist. I remember telling my mother, and her reaction basically was "No, you aren't." Not, "I forbid it," because she knew that would be meaningless, but literally, she didn't think I was really an atheist. I later realized she was right. It is not that I did not believe in God, but that I did not really believe in the Bible, and that I was focusing too much on the inhumanity that has often been perpetrated in the name of religion to see that somewhere, there has to be a God, even if I was not sure what the nature and function of God is. Later, in my 20s I guess, I thought I was an agnostic. I did not know if there was a God. Later still, I realized this wasn't correct either. I believed in something, I just wasn't sure exactly what, and since it had to be an all-powerful thing, it was God, even though it did not have most of the attributes of what other people call God. That's where I am now. I guess.

 

Now, some might ask, where does that leave my children, and more pointedly in light of some other threads, where does that leave the Declaration of Religious Principles of the BSA, in terms of my son? Simple, it leaves them with my wife, who is a Catholic, and believes all (well, most) of the things Catholics are supposed to believe. I have to say, she does not seem to have done a very good job. My older daughter (20) says she was a Wiccan, but now is not sure what she is. My middle daughter (15) says she is a Wiccan. (I think they had the same friend who was a Wiccan and got them interested in it. I have not seen any potions brewing or broomsticks used as means of transportation; they seem to mainly read about it and trade symbols or something on the Internet.) My son (11), well, we'll see. I don't think he'll be a practicing Catholic, he'll probably be confused like his father, and believe mainly in science. And I don't think that's so bad.

 

Now, should I hit "Send" on this, or blip it out of existence and chalk it up to a long week at work? Ahh, why not...

[littlebillie]

DeMann, sorry to be dense,I STILL can't tell from your post if you read Aramaic yourself and have reviewed original sources, which was the basis for my question - assuming that you knew the one and read the other, I was asking about the validity of the position that the word 'day' in current versions was in fact something else originally, based on your own direct reading?

 

regardless that, however, your comment "Evolution excludes the necessity for God" does not address the possibility that God DIRECTS evolution, for His own reasons... I cannot believe in a Supreme Deity Who would be incapable of Evolution.

 

and regardless THAT, what is the literalist position on erosion?

 

 

 

[firstpusk]

"here's an interesting thought:

 

until 1492, mankind thought that the earth was flat and nothing was under it."

 

Actually, that is a myth. The Greeks and Egyptians both proved that the earth was round before the time of Christ. Another creationist claimed this back in August. I also gave him this link. Seek and ye shall find.

http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/swartz/flat_earth.htm

 

"however, several thousand years ago, a man named Job said that God formed the earth and hung it on nothing (26:7). In fact, in the next verse, he even told us that the waters are bound up in clouds..... is that scientific?"

 

No, this is certainly poetic and quite beautiful but not scientific. It is the method that makes it scientific.

 

 

 

[firstpusk]

"If man evolved, then there is no afterlife..."

 

False dichotomy. Evolution does not speak to religion, the supernatural or God. It does not exclude God. It simply does not address God in any way.

[DeMann]

geeze....

 

the original text tells us that it happened in six days- days as we know them today. one revolution of this ball we now stand on. You can beg to take the easy way out, and scream at the top of your lungs that it evolved, but the text says a day as we know it. You can keep the argument of millions of years if you can put them into one revolution of the earth. that's it. For you to pick and choose the parts of the Bible you want to believe, is for you to discount all of it. you see, the only criteria for discounting any of it is some particular person's own, misguided but well intentioned decision. And if it is ok for you to do that, then it is ok for me to do it too... and I might decide that all kinds of immorality are just fine, and (these are your rules, not mine) that now becomes the truth. the problem with that idea is that God made the rules, not man. and as such, we cannot change what the Book says, we must accept it even if we don't like it.

that brings up another thing. too many times I see people say things like "I just can't believe God would do that" or "I don't see God as being like that". to that i want to ask, 'and who are you to define God?' you see, we must accept him, and not try to define him. we can never begin to understand the being that brought life into existance. think about it. LIFE. what is it, just some chemical reactions? no. it is Life. and since God made it, we must accept it, and HIM, as he is; not as we want to see him.

 

ps. Job is believed to be the oldest written document in the middle east. It is considered to be one of the finest examples of poetry in the Aramaic/Chaldee language, and from a gramattical stand point, it is. It is thought that Job (the man)may even predate Abraham. and, evidence shows that Abraham lived long before the 'great' Egyptians you like to speak of. Oh, yeh. since you like the Egyptian science stuff, are you into dung beetles and that kind of stuff too? are their beliefs about them true also?

[firstpusk]

"Oh, yeh. since you like the Egyptian science stuff, are you into dung beetles and that kind of stuff too? are their beliefs about them true also?"

 

Thanks for raising the level and quality of the debate. Dung beetles are interesting and so are the theological ideas that the Egyptians had about them. Their concepts, however, have no scientific validity. Neither does the first few chapters of Genesis. I don't need to scream that life evolved, the evidence does that for me.

 

You seem intent on deciding what someone must believe if they don't agree with you. I never said that Genesis was not inspired or did not express truth. It simply is not a text that can be said to be an acurate natural history. The intent of the author is not scientific.

 

I will agree that Job is a beautiful and poetic expression of faith. The oldest text from the ancient near east? Can't buy that one. Even granting the Book of Job an age on the old side, say 700 BC, that can in no way compare with stella from say the first dynasty in Egypt to around 3000 BC.