OT: What's your religeon?

[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)...
...

[Renegade 13]

Or we could just let this thread die a not so natural death, since it seems like the same people are stating the same opinions over and over. Let me tell you something....you're not going to change anyones mind! We're all going to continue thinking what we always have, since religious beliefs are often deeply ingrained. Let it go!! It's pointless!

(Sorry, but it really annoys me when people continue argueing about the same things over and over again. It seems rather foolish to me.)

[Will]

Just to nudge the OT thread even more OT...

I picked up a copy of "Stranger in a Strange Land" in the airport during a layover, and finished it a while ago at home. It certainly has an interesting viewpoint on the whole aspect of religion and culture, and I find that my viewpoint more or less falls in with Jubal's throughout most of the book. For those who haven't read it, the short Version: atheist beliefs, but doesn't claim to know beliefs are true, and accepts that any religion could have it right, while positing that none of them have hit it yet.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Fyron's already seen some of these answers on IRC, but other people havn't, so that's why I'm replying to all of them, in case you were wondering, Fyron.

What I'm saying here is that what we have in the bible KJV describes the end result of milenia of scribes occasionally making mistakes, with good accuracy. I'm not saying it all makes sense; I firmly beleive that the bible we have now is not the bible that was given.

Imperator Fyron said:
A few problems there Narf...

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.

[/qoute]
Heaven is listed first, then earth. It is not unreasonable to think that they would be listed in order of creation. An athiest who beleived/Subscribed to the big band theory would likely say something like 'The big bang pretty much created the visible universe and the earth'. It is less likely they would say 'The big bang pretty much created the earth and the universe'. As for the second point, what do you call the universe when you don't have the word 'universe'?
[qoute]

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.

[/qoute]
Please note that I said 'breathable'.
Actually, you inadvertantly explained it better than I did. What do you call lava when you know it's not fire, but don't have a word for 'lava'?
[qoute]

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...

[/qoute]
Water could mean lava. Or, it could refer to the formation of the supercontinent geologists beleive existed, without altering the meaning of the previous verse.
[qoute]

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.

[qoute]
'the waters' seems to be mentioned as an origin.
[/qoute]

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

[qoute]
Yes - But I doubt hebrew had a word for 'winged lizard'.
[/qoute]

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.

[qoute]
See above.
[/qoute]

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

[qoute]
Their were two 'brought forth's' before great whales.
[/qoute]

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

[qoute]
See above
[/qoute]

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?

[qoute]
Each 'brough forth' mentions a new class, generally expanding on the old 'brought forth'.
All the previous land creatures were amphibions?
[/qoute]

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

[qoute]
Rephrase: 'Every other order listed.' My mistake.
[/qoute]

It is not that accurate...

I disagree.