The Pope accepts Big Bang Theory?

[Newby]

An immature person would be "throwing you all some crumbs," a pius person speaks the truth as he knows it, or is supposed to anyways. We all know how Pius Radical Muslims and Pedofilic Christians can be.

Do you believe that they're pedofiles because of christianity?

That has nothing to do with my point. My point was not that being Christian leads them to being pedofiles, at all.

Then why combine it and call them pedophilic christians? What's the point?

 

[G.T.]

Do you believe that they're pedofiles because of christianity?

That has nothing to do with my point. My point was not that being Christian leads them to being pedofiles, at all.

Then why combine it and call them pedophilic christians? What's the point?

That self-proclaimed Pius people aren't always necessarily pius.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

God was behind Big Bang, universe no accident: Pope - Yahoo! News

So now he says that God was behind the Big Bang.

This is telling to me, in that he's by proxy dismissing Biblical timelines and also the Creation story. No?

Anyways, I though that it was pretty intriguing.

What biblical time lines are you referring to?

 

[G.T.]

Creation...Flood AM

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That chart is not in the Bible.

 

[DiveCon]

hmmm, how is the big bang theory couter to creation?

God said "let there be light" BANG!!!!!!!!!! and it was BIG

 

[G.T.]

That chart is not in the Bible.

You have to read the Bible in the context of its historical references to ascertain a timeline. Most creationists, which was many a Pope, believed that to have been 6K years ago. I'm not going to debate that, because my lack of belief in Christianity has absolutely squat to do with it.

But I will reference a SPECIFIC TIMELINE referenced in Genesis, since I presume you'll reject using Historical references in order to ascertain one. Here we go:

Day 1: creation of light and its separation from darkness.
Day 2: separation of the sky and oceans.
Day 3: separation of land from the oceans; spreading of plants and grass and trees across the land.
Day 4: Creation of the sun, moon, and stars.
Day 5: Creation of sea animals and birds.
Day 6: Creation of the land animals. Creation of humanity, "someone like ourselves."
Day 7: God rested.

And with this, a question: How could day one, come before day four?

 

[DiveCon]

That chart is not in the Bible.

You have to read the Bible in the context of its historical references to ascertain a timeline. Most creationists, which was many a Pope, believed that to have been 6K years ago. I'm not going to debate that, because my lack of belief in Christianity has absolutely squat to do with it.

But I will reference a SPECIFIC TIMELINE referenced in Genesis, since I presume you'll reject using Historical references in order to ascertain one. Here we go:

Day 1: creation of light and its separation from darkness.
Day 2: separation of the sky and oceans.
Day 3: separation of land from the oceans; spreading of plants and grass and trees across the land.
Day 4: Creation of the sun, moon, and stars.
Day 5: Creation of sea animals and birds.
Day 6: Creation of the land animals. Creation of humanity, "someone like ourselves."
Day 7: God rested.

And with this, a question: How could day one, come before day four?

it was explaining a complex system to people with simple minds
IE, it was figurative
not literal

 

[Skull Pilot]

Well since the singularity is just a theory kind of like the man in the sky why not call them the same thing?

 

[G.T.]

That chart is not in the Bible.

You have to read the Bible in the context of its historical references to ascertain a timeline. Most creationists, which was many a Pope, believed that to have been 6K years ago. I'm not going to debate that, because my lack of belief in Christianity has absolutely squat to do with it.

But I will reference a SPECIFIC TIMELINE referenced in Genesis, since I presume you'll reject using Historical references in order to ascertain one. Here we go:

Day 1: creation of light and its separation from darkness.
Day 2: separation of the sky and oceans.
Day 3: separation of land from the oceans; spreading of plants and grass and trees across the land.
Day 4: Creation of the sun, moon, and stars.
Day 5: Creation of sea animals and birds.
Day 6: Creation of the land animals. Creation of humanity, "someone like ourselves."
Day 7: God rested.

And with this, a question: How could day one, come before day four?

it was explaining a complex system to people with simple minds
IE, it was figurative
not literal

It can be figurative, and that's fine, and even oversimplified due to the lack of knowledge at the time; however; it's still out of order.

 

[G.T.]

Well since the singularity is just a theory kind of like the man in the sky why not call them the same thing?

It's called the same thing right in the thread title. Don't you get tired of being condescending ..........just to be so?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That chart is not in the Bible.

You have to read the Bible in the context of its historical references to ascertain a timeline. Most creationists, which was many a Pope, believed that to have been 6K years ago. I'm not going to debate that, because my lack of belief in Christianity has absolutely squat to do with it.

But I will reference a SPECIFIC TIMELINE referenced in Genesis, since I presume you'll reject using Historical references in order to ascertain one. Here we go:

Day 1: creation of light and its separation from darkness.
Day 2: separation of the sky and oceans.
Day 3: separation of land from the oceans; spreading of plants and grass and trees across the land.
Day 4: Creation of the sun, moon, and stars.
Day 5: Creation of sea animals and birds.
Day 6: Creation of the land animals. Creation of humanity, "someone like ourselves."
Day 7: God rested.

And with this, a question: How could day one, come before day four?

In other words, I have the read the Bible the way you want me to to get an imaginary time line.

What historical reference do I use to date the flood, Job, or even Moses?

Maybe you should get together with SmarterthanHick since you both prefer to interpret things your way rather learn the facts.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Well since the singularity is just a theory kind of like the man in the sky why not call them the same thing?

It's called the same thing right in the thread title. Don't you get tired of being condescending ..........just to be so?

No.

 

[DiveCon]

You have to read the Bible in the context of its historical references to ascertain a timeline. Most creationists, which was many a Pope, believed that to have been 6K years ago. I'm not going to debate that, because my lack of belief in Christianity has absolutely squat to do with it.

But I will reference a SPECIFIC TIMELINE referenced in Genesis, since I presume you'll reject using Historical references in order to ascertain one. Here we go:

Day 1: creation of light and its separation from darkness.
Day 2: separation of the sky and oceans.
Day 3: separation of land from the oceans; spreading of plants and grass and trees across the land.
Day 4: Creation of the sun, moon, and stars.
Day 5: Creation of sea animals and birds.
Day 6: Creation of the land animals. Creation of humanity, "someone like ourselves."
Day 7: God rested.

And with this, a question: How could day one, come before day four?

it was explaining a complex system to people with simple minds
IE, it was figurative
not literal

It can be figurative, and that's fine, and even oversimplified due to the lack of knowledge at the time; however; it's still out of order.

if you think of it as the light that was created was emanating FROM God
then it is NOT out of order
the light being separated was God from darkness
then he created the planets and stars

 

[G.T.]

That chart is not in the Bible.

You have to read the Bible in the context of its historical references to ascertain a timeline. Most creationists, which was many a Pope, believed that to have been 6K years ago. I'm not going to debate that, because my lack of belief in Christianity has absolutely squat to do with it.

But I will reference a SPECIFIC TIMELINE referenced in Genesis, since I presume you'll reject using Historical references in order to ascertain one. Here we go:

Day 1: creation of light and its separation from darkness.
Day 2: separation of the sky and oceans.
Day 3: separation of land from the oceans; spreading of plants and grass and trees across the land.
Day 4: Creation of the sun, moon, and stars.
Day 5: Creation of sea animals and birds.
Day 6: Creation of the land animals. Creation of humanity, "someone like ourselves."
Day 7: God rested.

And with this, a question: How could day one, come before day four?

In other words, I have the read the Bible the way you want me to to get an imaginary time line.

What historical reference do I use to date the flood, Job, or even Moses?

Maybe you should get together with SmarterthanHick since you both prefer to interpret things your way rather learn the facts.

The Bible begins with the Book of Genesis, in which God creates the world, including the first human, a man named Adam, in six days. Genesis goes on to list many of Adam's descendants, in many cases giving the ages at which they had children and died. If these events and ages are interpreted literally throughout and the genealogies are considered closed, it is possible to build up a chronology in which many of the events of the Old Testament are dated to an estimated number of years after creation.

Some scholars have gone further, and have attempted to tie in this Biblical chronology with that of recorded history, thus establishing a date for creation in a modern calendar. Since there are periods in the Biblical story where dates are not given, the chronology has been subject to interpretation in many different ways, resulting in a variety of estimates of the date of Creation.

Two dominant dates for creation using such models exist, about 5500 BCE and about 4000 BCE. These were calculated from the genealogies in two versions of the Bible, with most of the difference arising from two versions of Genesis. The older dates are based on the Greek Septuagint. The later dates are based on the Hebrew Masoretic text. The patriarchs from Adam to Terach,[7] the father of Abraham, were often 100 years older when they begat their named son in the Septuagint than they were in the Hebrew or the Vulgate (Genesis 5, 11). The net difference between the two genealogies of Genesis was 1466 years (ignoring the "second year after the flood" ambiguity), which is virtually all of the 1500-year difference between 5500 BCE and 4000 BCE.

Some Traditionalist Catholics use the year 5199 BC, which is taken from Catholic martyrologies, and referred to as the true date of Creation in the "Mystical City of God," a 17th-century mystical work written by María de Ágreda concerning creation and the life of the Virgin Mary. This year was used by the church historian Eusebius in 324.[8]

In the English-speaking world, one of the most well known estimates in modern times is that of Archbishop James Ussher (1581–1656), who proposed a date of Sunday, October 23, 4004 BCE; he placed the beginning of this first day of creation, and hence the exact time of creation, at the previous nightfall, exactly 4,000 years before the birth of Christ according to the ideas of his time. (See the Ussher chronology).[3]

In the second century BCE one Jewish writer wrote the Book of Jubilees, an attempt to divide the Genesis chronology into 7 and 49 year cycles (Sabbatical and Jubilee cycles).

The majority of classical Rabbis hold that the Earth was created around 6,000 years ago.[9] This view is based on a chronology developed in a midrash, Seder Olam, which was based on a literal reading of the book of Genesis. It is considered to have been written by the Tanna Yose ben Halafta and covers history from the creation of the universe to the construction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem. It is known, however, that a literal approach is not always warranted when interpreting the Torah.[10] Two of the most influential rabbis commenting on the Talmud, Maimonides (Rambam) and Nahmanides (Ramban) held that Genesis should not be taken literally. A minority of classical rabbis believed that the world is older, basing their conclusions on verses in the Talmud the midrash.

Scholars subscribing to literal interpretations give two dates for creation according to the Talmud. They state that the first day of creation week was either Elul 25, AM 1 or Adar 25, AM 1, almost twelve or six months, respectively, after the modern epoch of the Hebrew calendar. Most prefer Elul 25 whereas a few prefer Adar 25. When these dates were chosen, both were the first day of the week (Sunday), but in the modern calendar, developed later, they are not. The sixth day of Creation week, when Adam was created, was the first day of the following month, either Tishri or Nisan, the first month of either the civil or biblical year, respectively. In both cases, the epoch of the modern calendar was called the molad tohu or mean new moon of chaos, because it occurred before Creation. This epoch was Tishri 1, AM 1 or October 7, 3761 BCE, the latter being the corresponding tabular date (same daylight period) in the Julian calendar.[11]

Scholars of the Kabbalah taught that the Earth was created over 6,000 years ago. Bahya ben Asher concludes that there were many time systems occurring in the universe long before the spans of history that man is familiar with, and based on the Kabbalah, calculates that the Earth is billions of years old.[9]

Dating Creation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[G.T.]

it was explaining a complex system to people with simple minds
IE, it was figurative
not literal

It can be figurative, and that's fine, and even oversimplified due to the lack of knowledge at the time; however; it's still out of order.

if you think of it as the light that was created was emanating FROM God
then it is NOT out of order
the light being separated was God from darkness
then he created the planets and stars

But it wouldn't make sense to me anyways, in that #1 is metaphorical but the rest are explaining the actual physical components of the Earth and the Universe.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Bible begins with the Book of Genesis, in which God creates the world, including the first human, a man named Adam, in six days. Genesis goes on to list many of Adam's descendants, in many cases giving the ages at which they had children and died. If these events and ages are interpreted literally throughout and the genealogies are considered closed, it is possible to build up a chronology in which many of the events of the Old Testament are dated to an estimated number of years after creation.

Are you going to try and lecture me about what the Bible says and means? Why do atheists think they can talk about something they never read?

Just as an FYI, there is more than one way to read Genesis. Two different words are translated to mean creation from the original Hebrew, bara and asah. The first probably should be translated as create from nothing, and the second should be translated as make.

The Hebrew word translated as was in Genesis 1:2 implies that something occurred before to make something the way it is now. In other words, something made the world formless and void, it was not created that way.

Additionally, it is completely impossible to build a chronology from the events in Genesis. Not only is it an oral tradition that only touches the high points, it is easily demonstrated that there are gaps that cannot be reconciled. You have people that are generations apart being called father and son. Only a complete idiot would try to build a chronology using the events of Genesis alone. That makes you deliberately attempting to mislead with your post here, unless you are going to say you actually believe this, thus proving yourself a complete idiot.

Some scholars have gone further, and have attempted to tie in this Biblical chronology with that of recorded history, thus establishing a date for creation in a modern calendar. Since there are periods in the Biblical story where dates are not given, the chronology has been subject to interpretation in many different ways, resulting in a variety of estimates of the date of Creation.

How many of those scholars attempt to say the earth is only 6000 years old?

Two dominant dates for creation using such models exist, about 5500 BCE and about 4000 BCE. These were calculated from the genealogies in two versions of the Bible, with most of the difference arising from two versions of Genesis. The older dates are based on the Greek Septuagint. The later dates are based on the Hebrew Masoretic text. The patriarchs from Adam to Terach,[7] the father of Abraham, were often 100 years older when they begat their named son in the Septuagint than they were in the Hebrew or the Vulgate (Genesis 5, 11). The net difference between the two genealogies of Genesis was 1466 years (ignoring the "second year after the flood" ambiguity), which is virtually all of the 1500-year difference between 5500 BCE and 4000 BCE.

Some Traditionalist Catholics use the year 5199 BC, which is taken from Catholic martyrologies, and referred to as the true date of Creation in the "Mystical City of God," a 17th-century mystical work written by María de Ágreda concerning creation and the life of the Virgin Mary. This year was used by the church historian Eusebius in 324.[8]

In the English-speaking world, one of the most well known estimates in modern times is that of Archbishop James Ussher (1581–1656), who proposed a date of Sunday, October 23, 4004 BCE; he placed the beginning of this first day of creation, and hence the exact time of creation, at the previous nightfall, exactly 4,000 years before the birth of Christ according to the ideas of his time. (See the Ussher chronology).[3]

In the second century BCE one Jewish writer wrote the Book of Jubilees, an attempt to divide the Genesis chronology into 7 and 49 year cycles (Sabbatical and Jubilee cycles).

The majority of classical Rabbis hold that the Earth was created around 6,000 years ago.[9] This view is based on a chronology developed in a midrash, Seder Olam, which was based on a literal reading of the book of Genesis. It is considered to have been written by the Tanna Yose ben Halafta and covers history from the creation of the universe to the construction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem. It is known, however, that a literal approach is not always warranted when interpreting the Torah.[10] Two of the most influential rabbis commenting on the Talmud, Maimonides (Rambam) and Nahmanides (Ramban) held that Genesis should not be taken literally. A minority of classical rabbis believed that the world is older, basing their conclusions on verses in the Talmud the midrash.

Scholars subscribing to literal interpretations give two dates for creation according to the Talmud. They state that the first day of creation week was either Elul 25, AM 1 or Adar 25, AM 1, almost twelve or six months, respectively, after the modern epoch of the Hebrew calendar. Most prefer Elul 25 whereas a few prefer Adar 25. When these dates were chosen, both were the first day of the week (Sunday), but in the modern calendar, developed later, they are not. The sixth day of Creation week, when Adam was created, was the first day of the following month, either Tishri or Nisan, the first month of either the civil or biblical year, respectively. In both cases, the epoch of the modern calendar was called the molad tohu or mean new moon of chaos, because it occurred before Creation. This epoch was Tishri 1, AM 1 or October 7, 3761 BCE, the latter being the corresponding tabular date (same daylight period) in the Julian calendar.[11]

Scholars of the Kabbalah taught that the Earth was created over 6,000 years ago. Bahya ben Asher concludes that there were many time systems occurring in the universe long before the spans of history that man is familiar with, and based on the Kabbalah, calculates that the Earth is billions of years old.[9]

Dating Creation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You really should read some other articles on Wikipedia occasionally.

Gap creationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You might also want to Google Lilith and think about how Genesis tells us that God created man as both male and female, then it talks about making Eve out of Adam's rib.

You really have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[G.T.]

The Bible begins with the Book of Genesis, in which God creates the world, including the first human, a man named Adam, in six days. Genesis goes on to list many of Adam's descendants, in many cases giving the ages at which they had children and died. If these events and ages are interpreted literally throughout and the genealogies are considered closed, it is possible to build up a chronology in which many of the events of the Old Testament are dated to an estimated number of years after creation.

Are you going to try and lecture me about what the Bible says and means? Why do atheists think they can talk about something they never read?

Just as an FYI, there is more than one way to read Genesis. Two different words are translated to mean creation from the original Hebrew, bara and asah. The first probably should be translated as create from nothing, and the second should be translated as make.

The Hebrew word translated as was in Genesis 1:2 implies that something occurred before to make something the way it is now. In other words, something made the world formless and void, it was not created that way.

Additionally, it is completely impossible to build a chronology from the events in Genesis. Not only is it an oral tradition that only touches the high points, it is easily demonstrated that there are gaps that cannot be reconciled. You have people that are generations apart being called father and son. Only a complete idiot would try to build a chronology using the events of Genesis alone. That makes you deliberately attempting to mislead with your post here, unless you are going to say you actually believe this, thus proving yourself a complete idiot.

Some scholars have gone further, and have attempted to tie in this Biblical chronology with that of recorded history, thus establishing a date for creation in a modern calendar. Since there are periods in the Biblical story where dates are not given, the chronology has been subject to interpretation in many different ways, resulting in a variety of estimates of the date of Creation.

How many of those scholars attempt to say the earth is only 6000 years old?

Two dominant dates for creation using such models exist, about 5500 BCE and about 4000 BCE. These were calculated from the genealogies in two versions of the Bible, with most of the difference arising from two versions of Genesis. The older dates are based on the Greek Septuagint. The later dates are based on the Hebrew Masoretic text. The patriarchs from Adam to Terach,[7] the father of Abraham, were often 100 years older when they begat their named son in the Septuagint than they were in the Hebrew or the Vulgate (Genesis 5, 11). The net difference between the two genealogies of Genesis was 1466 years (ignoring the "second year after the flood" ambiguity), which is virtually all of the 1500-year difference between 5500 BCE and 4000 BCE.

Some Traditionalist Catholics use the year 5199 BC, which is taken from Catholic martyrologies, and referred to as the true date of Creation in the "Mystical City of God," a 17th-century mystical work written by María de Ágreda concerning creation and the life of the Virgin Mary. This year was used by the church historian Eusebius in 324.[8]

In the English-speaking world, one of the most well known estimates in modern times is that of Archbishop James Ussher (1581–1656), who proposed a date of Sunday, October 23, 4004 BCE; he placed the beginning of this first day of creation, and hence the exact time of creation, at the previous nightfall, exactly 4,000 years before the birth of Christ according to the ideas of his time. (See the Ussher chronology).[3]

In the second century BCE one Jewish writer wrote the Book of Jubilees, an attempt to divide the Genesis chronology into 7 and 49 year cycles (Sabbatical and Jubilee cycles).

The majority of classical Rabbis hold that the Earth was created around 6,000 years ago.[9] This view is based on a chronology developed in a midrash, Seder Olam, which was based on a literal reading of the book of Genesis. It is considered to have been written by the Tanna Yose ben Halafta and covers history from the creation of the universe to the construction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem. It is known, however, that a literal approach is not always warranted when interpreting the Torah.[10] Two of the most influential rabbis commenting on the Talmud, Maimonides (Rambam) and Nahmanides (Ramban) held that Genesis should not be taken literally. A minority of classical rabbis believed that the world is older, basing their conclusions on verses in the Talmud the midrash.

Scholars subscribing to literal interpretations give two dates for creation according to the Talmud. They state that the first day of creation week was either Elul 25, AM 1 or Adar 25, AM 1, almost twelve or six months, respectively, after the modern epoch of the Hebrew calendar. Most prefer Elul 25 whereas a few prefer Adar 25. When these dates were chosen, both were the first day of the week (Sunday), but in the modern calendar, developed later, they are not. The sixth day of Creation week, when Adam was created, was the first day of the following month, either Tishri or Nisan, the first month of either the civil or biblical year, respectively. In both cases, the epoch of the modern calendar was called the molad tohu or mean new moon of chaos, because it occurred before Creation. This epoch was Tishri 1, AM 1 or October 7, 3761 BCE, the latter being the corresponding tabular date (same daylight period) in the Julian calendar.[11]

Scholars of the Kabbalah taught that the Earth was created over 6,000 years ago. Bahya ben Asher concludes that there were many time systems occurring in the universe long before the spans of history that man is familiar with, and based on the Kabbalah, calculates that the Earth is billions of years old.[9]

Dating Creation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You really should read some other articles on Wikipedia occasionally.

Gap creationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You might also want to Google Lilith and think about how Genesis tells us that God created man as both male and female, then it talks about making Eve out of Adam's rib.

You really have no idea what you are talking about.

#1. Not an Atheist. /fail.
#2. I didn't tell you how to read the Bible, you asked how anyone gets a time line from it, and I gave you an article. /fail.
#3. Myself, personally, I don't have a theory on a time-line in the Bible. My question was for those that do. /fail.
#4. At no point was I lecturing, but in fact if you read your own posts, you're doing the lecturing. /fail.
#5. I had already told you that a time-line has zip zilch zero to do with why I don't believe in Christianity, regardless, and so you're arguing a moot point in that a. I do not care and b. my question in this thread itself obviously does not apply to you. c. being that a&b have happened, I tried to be cordial and ask you a differing question in my two posts-ago, (to you.)

Anyways, I posted in numbered form because chessiswars is an obsessive compulsive format poster and I was hoping he'd read this and cringe.

 

[Newby]

That has nothing to do with my point. My point was not that being Christian leads them to being pedofiles, at all.

Then why combine it and call them pedophilic christians? What's the point?

That self-proclaimed Pius people aren't always necessarily pius.

And that's news how? It's been that way since the dawn of time and will be that way until the sun goes out. That's the reality of life, that's humanity.

 

[G.T.]

Then why combine it and call them pedophilic christians? What's the point?

That self-proclaimed Pius people aren't always necessarily pius.

And that's news how? It's been that way since the dawn of time and will be that way until the sun goes out. That's the reality of life, that's humanity.

It's not "news," and every sentence everyone says isn't "news," but when people say things like "that's news how?" that's news to me. Thumbs up.