OT: What's your religeon?

[narf poit chez BOOM]

And this is getting kind of off-topic, so if you want to reply, please make a new thread.

[Fyron]

A few problems there Narf...

As for the order, KJV, 1st day: 'In the beggining God created the heaven and the Earth.' - Universe, then planet. Same.

No. This does not say, heaven first, then the Earth, just heaven and Earth. There is no order. This is not the same as scientific fact. It is a bit of a stretch to relete "heaven" to "universe," but that is beside the point.

'And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so.' Seems to imply that atmosphere came after water; as far as breathable, same.

That is an invalid assumption. There was atmosphere long before water. There are also no "waters under the firmanent," there is magma, and molten cores, and all that fun stuff, especially before the Earth started cooling enough for any water to be present in non-gaseous form.

3rd day,
'And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear' Same.

Dry land was there long before liquid water. The world was never covered entirely in water, then land started appearing. This is backwards. Water started appearing as the Earth cooled from its super hot beginnings (condensation). Unless you want to call lava water...

'And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose see is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.' After water, atmosphere and land formation, plants. Note that the next verse recaps and references 'trees'.

5th,
'And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.' Land creatures. Same.

This is rather ambiguous... doesn't say what sort of creatures the waters brought forth. Land creatures? Sea creatures? What was first, fish or land creatures? Definitely indeterminate.

Fowl - No reference to feathers. Indeterminate.

Fowl means one thing, a certain kind of bird. Fowl directly implies (and requires) feathers.

'And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.' Creatures coming out of the water. Same.

The waters only "brought forth" marine life and amphibians. Everything else was not "brought forth" by the waters, but evolved from the first amphibians, on land.

Large sea creatures after (Implied)small ones. Same.

There was no such implication. If you want to read it literally, as you did before, it implies that great whales were first.

No reference to feathers.

Again, fowl is a certain class of birds. Most certainly feathers. Can't be anything else.

6th,
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.' More diverse life forms(Implied) after(Implied) less diverse life forms. Same.

I see no such implication. Also, seems to be contradictory. All the living creatures that move were already created on day 5. How can creatures already created be recreated?

'So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.' Humans after the establishment of every other catagory of life. Same.

No, not the same. There are a lot of categories of life that evolved after or parallel with humans.

That's enough for me to say it's amazingly accurate, given the span of time.

It is not that accurate...

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Could a mod move the entire off-topic part to another thread, please?

For help on what to make, I think it really got off-topic with Dogscoff's Last post; Fyron think's it started with 'Electrum's post perhaps, starting with "On one hand, I understand a person Not beliving the Bible based on the actions & conduct on those who "Claim" to believe it. I personally am appalled by such mis-representation. "'

So, um, use your judgement?

[deccan]

I'll wait to see if a mod does actually move it before replying. But I'm reading.

[Makinus]

There is anyone that really believe literally in everything that the bible says (including the contraditory parts?).... if so, this person would be extremely confused... (at least i would be, but maybe i´m wrong)

Of course the bible was heavily tinkered by several persons along the time, if you don´t belive it, get an actucal Version of your preffered cannon and compare it with the same cannon of a century ago (i did it, and the subtle and not-so-subtle alterations are interesting)...

Edit: edited to change possible inflamattory words, even don´t believing in everything that the bible says i do respect the book as a way that some people can become more compassionate and wise human beings... unfortunatelly some people also use the writings of the bible to justify very atrocious acts... but this is not the fault of the bible, but of the human beings...

PS: Dogscoff, thanks for your hint, i was wrong to use harsh words to demean or ridicularize persons that don´t belive in the same things that i do...

[dogscoff]

Makinus, the answer to your most recent question will be "yes" for many people on this forum (NOT including me) so you might want to edit your post before things get out of hand.

[Makinus]

Edited the post (i didn´t excluded my question, only phrased it in a more educated manner)

I do find that the bible, if you read it knowing that it is a book created by human beings and not directly by God, can be used to learn several good things...

[AMF]

A good book to read in this regard is "Asimov's Guide to the Bible"

Makinus said:
Of course the bible was heavily tinkered by several persons along the time, if you don´t belive it, get an actucal Version of your preffered cannon and compare it with the same cannon of a century ago (i did it, and the subtle and not-so-subtle alterations are interesting)...
...

[AMF]

Allow me to add to this that it is commonly asserted by those with some sort of belief in god that atheists are unable to have a set of morals. This is, of course, not true. Morals exists just fine outside of the beleif in some divine presence. I just always feel the need to point this out whne this topic comes up since non-atheists love to paint atheists as amoral, evil, etc...

AgentZero said:
Unapologetically aethiest. Couple points I'd like to make though.
1) Aethism does not count as a religion. Aethism is the lack of belief in God, not a belief in the lack of God.
2) Refering to God as 'He' is not sexist. It's proper English. Ask any English teacher (or English major) and they will tell you that in the English language, the default gender for beings of indeterminate sex is male.

[Niltrias]

This is probably the most amusing OT post I've seen on this forum. Though I'm a bit late, here goes...

I was raised mormon. Or raised in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I later converted to Orthodoxy (russian, to be specific, not that it matters.) I used to be a monk but gave it over.

My brother is the Army's wiccan chaplain for germany.

Niltrias