Proper Education Standards Prevail - Page 7 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-05-2006, 12:12 PM   #91
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 06:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


That flippant remark is very true, I'm sorry if you don't believe that.



I told you the other word used, there's plenty of information out there on this issue.

You suggested twice, I backed it up the first time, the second time was uncalled for.
You made a remark about how people around here don't like to go to the original source and now have as much admitted that you didn't go to the original source, either.
__________________

__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 08-05-2006, 12:35 PM   #92
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 06:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Angela Harlem


How do you reconcile biblical stories such as this with reality?
Simple; I do not automatically think that the theory of evolution is reality simply because man has said so. That's because I don't put my faith in the wisdom of man or that man is the high power. I look around this world and I don't like what I see; man has seized control and is destroying all of God's creations - other people, animals, and the environment.

Long ago - 27 years ago, in fact - I made a decision to put my faith in Jesus Christ as the Son Of God, he who voluntarily died on a cross to redeem me from my sins. This was not a snap decision for me. And since that time, I have had many things happen in my life to test my faith. Through them all, God has always pulled me through. Always. And he has never allowed me to lose my faith. It's not all based completely on faith, either. As you may have read, I have on one occasion in my life received direct communication from God or an angel that saved my life.

In summary, man doesn't have the answers I seek for the big questions that haunt me, but God does.

You may think I'm irrational, stupid, or whatever. I'm not saying you do think that, but if you I'm okay with it. I know that many intellectuals have this picture of Christians as country bumpkins, hayseeds and hicks. I have a 126 IQ, and I am always deep in thought, as anyone who has known me for a while would tell you.
__________________

__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 08-05-2006, 12:50 PM   #93
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 06:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer

Of course if we don't believe in a real Adam then the notion of Original Sin is fucked up and the theology will become unwound.
I'm only responding to this part of what you wrote, not because I'm ignoring the other parts. Partly, because I don't understand it all, and also partly because it all deals with the issue of "in who's wisdom do I place my trust; God or man?". If you want more of my answer on that one, please read what I wrote Angela. The truth is that I am sure you are a very intelligent man, but I'm not going to buy what any man tells me over what I believe to be the Word of God.

I am however addressing this part, because I agree with you totally, and it is what I always say (without the "f" word ) to Christians who believe that Adam is a myth. If there was no Adam, then there is no original sin that is passed down from the beginning. Also, if there was no Adam, then Christ was a liar because he spoke of Adam and Eve as if they were actually living human beings. Paul was also a liar. In fact, if Adam did not exist, then the Old Testament and New Testament are both unreliable. If it's unreliable in any point, how do we know which parts are reliable, if any? At that point, it shifts in our minds from being "Truth" to "Pick and choose whatever you want".
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 08-05-2006, 04:29 PM   #94
The Fly
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 220
Local Time: 11:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest

You may think I'm irrational, stupid, or whatever. I'm not saying you do think that, but if you I'm okay with it. I know that many intellectuals have this picture of Christians as country bumpkins, hayseeds and hicks. I have a 126 IQ, and I am always deep in thought, as anyone who has known me for a while would tell you.
Why would I think that this makes you stupid? You adhere to a deeply felt faith and that seems to bring joy into your life. Thus it is right for you and that is really all that I need to know. Do not sell short the tolerance of those who do not share your faith. All that I ask is that you show me similar respect and allow me to disagree with you – and as experience shows we do disagree on almost all issues.

What I do oppose, and vehemently so, is those who would legislate religious doctrine. It has no place in a free society but nonetheless law-makers are put under increasing pressure to do so to the detriment of all. Faith is a private matter and should practised in the private sphere.
__________________
silja is offline  
Old 08-05-2006, 05:05 PM   #95
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 06:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by silja


Why would I think that this makes you stupid? You adhere to a deeply felt faith and that seems to bring joy into your life. Thus it is right for you and that is really all that I need to know. Do not sell short the tolerance of those who do not share your faith..
I addressed that note to Angela Harlem, because she asked me a question. I have never had any reason to think that you would think I am stupid. However, things have been said by some at Free Your Mind that show that they do seem to think that people of faith are less intelligent and "backwoods" type of people.

Quote:
Originally posted by silja

All that I ask is that you show me similar respect and allow me to disagree with you – and as experience shows we do disagree on almost all issues.
I'll certainly give you respect and allow you to diagree with me. I'm not aware of a time when I haven't respected your views.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 08-06-2006, 10:33 PM   #96
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,655
Local Time: 05:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


You made a remark about how people around here don't like to go to the original source and now have as much admitted that you didn't go to the original source, either.
Give me a break.

I've done the research. Just because I can't personally read Hebrew doesn't mean I've somehow ignored the original text. I've seen plenty of research on the subject from trusted scholars who can.

But nice avoidance of the real issue.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 08-06-2006, 11:11 PM   #97
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 06:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Give me a break.

I've done the research. Just because I can't personally read Hebrew doesn't mean I've somehow ignored the original text. I've seen plenty of research on the subject from trusted scholars who can.

But nice avoidance of the real issue.
I can't believe this; I really can't.

You didn't say "people don't around like to see plenty of research". You said "people around here don't like to go to the original source".

But you didn't go to the original source.

My word. You really can't see that your comment backfired on you and that you are actually the one doing the avoiding of that fact? Good grief.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 08-06-2006, 11:27 PM   #98
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,655
Local Time: 05:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


I can't believe this; I really can't.

You didn't say "people don't around like to see plenty of research". You said "people around here don't like to go to the original source".

But you didn't go to the original source.

My word. You really can't see that your comment backfired on you and that you are actually the one doing the avoiding of that fact? Good grief.
Semantics.

Yes, I guess I should have said "no one really likes to see, hear, or do research on the original source".

I'm sorry you have to take everything so literal.

Now, back to the subject. If you want to Google something, look up the word "asah" and it's use in Genesis and you'll find several commentaries, translations, and discussions about this subject.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 08-06-2006, 11:50 PM   #99
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 06:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Semantics.

Yes, I guess I should have said "no one really likes to see, hear, or do research on the original source".

I'm sorry you have to take everything so literal.

Now, back to the subject. If you want to Google something, look up the word "asah" and it's use in Genesis and you'll find several commentaries, translations, and discussions about this subject.
When you're going to make a comment intended to make others look stupid, make sure you say what you really mean, to lessen the possibility of that comment backfiring on you.

I did look up asah, and you're right, asah is used along with bara. Asah means "to make or form". Some people think that "asah/to make or form" cannot mean to make or form out of nothing. But you also know that that assumption is not agreed upon. Here are a couple of nice little passages I found on this subject:

Some who read Genesis 1-2 have suggested, for example, that the Hebrew words translated “create” (bara) and “make” (asah) always mean entirely different things. They believe that bara means “to create,” while asah means “to re-create” or “to make over.” Thus, we are told, “the heavens and earth” were created in the beginning (vs. 1-2; supposedly a time that could have been billions of years ago), and then there was a six-day “make over” (vv. 3-31). The problem with this theory (commonly known as the Gap Theory) is that the “explanatory notes” God has given us throughout the Old Testament concerning the events recorded in Genesis 1 reveal that the words “create” (bara) and “make/made” (asah) are used interchangeably in reference to the creation of the Universe and everything in it.

Consider Exodus 20:11: “For in six days the Lord made [asah] heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day,” Gap theorists contend that this verse speaks only of God’s “re-forming” from something already in existence. Yet notice that the verse specifically speaks of the heaven and the earth—the very same things mentioned in Genesis 1:1. Notice also the psalmist’s commentary on Genesis 1:

Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord from the heavens; praise Him in the heights! Praise Him, all His angels; praise Him, all His hosts! Praise Him, sun and moon; praise Him, all you stars of light! Praise Him, you heavens of heavens, and you waters above the heavens! Let them praise the name of the Lord, for He commanded and they were created (Psalm 148:1-5, emp. added).

The psalmist indicated that the Sun, Moon, and stars (among other things) were created (bara). However, Genesis 1:16 states: “God made (asah) two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made (asah) the stars also.” When we “couple” Genesis 1:16 with Psalm 148:1-5, the only logical conclusion that we can draw is that “to create” and “to make” are used to refer to the same event—the making of heavenly bodies on the fourth day of creation.

Finally, consider what Nehemiah wrote concerning God’s creation:

You alone are the Lord; You have made [asah] heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth and everything on it, the seas and all that is in them, and You preserve them all. The host of heaven worships You (9:6, emp. added).

When Nehemiah wrote about some of the same events recorded in Psalm 148:1-5 and Genesis 1:1 [in which the word “created” (bara) was used], he employed the word “made” (asah).


****
and this...

The first “proof” offered is usually an effort at creating an impassable distinction between the words “create” and “made” as found in the first chapter of Genesis. The contention being that only the word “create” (bara in Hebrew) can mean to call forth out of nothing and subsequently the words “make” or “form” (asah in Hebrew) must be interpreted to mean a re-fashioning or making from pre-existing material. It is presumed, by the gap theory, that this pre-existent material is the substance, or debris remaining after the earth underwent the judgmental action we have describe earlier. While it is true that the two words in question are different and can have distinct, separate meanings, they also are used synonymously throughout the Scriptures. In fact “bara” is not always used to describe a calling forth out of nothing. The word is used in Isaiah 65:18 in reference to a restored Jerusalem and not the original creation of that city. The distinction made, in support of the gap, is artificial and strained to say the least. That the two words are used to express the same concept in regard to God’s creative abilities can be seen by comparing Genesis 1:1, which uses “bara” with the following verses (all KJV) which use “asah.”

Genesis 1:31; 2:2-4
Exodus 20:11
II Kings 19:15
II Chronicles 2:12
Nehemiah 9:6
Psalms 33:6; 96:5; 115:15; 121:2; 124:8; 134:3; 136:5; 146:6
Proverbs 8:26
Ecclesiastes 3:11
Isaiah 37:16; 44:24; 45:12, 18
Jeremiah 10:12; 27:5; 32:17; 51:15

The twenty six verses listed above all use the word “asah” (make) not “bara” (create) to describe the same actions of God that are declared in Genesis 1:1, where “bara” is used. As you read these verses you will note that the majority of the cited passages refer explicitly and pointedly to the “making” of the heavens as declared in the Genesis 1:1 account. Clearly the two words are synonymous when used to describe God’s creative acts. The two words in question, “create” and “make,” are also used with the same intent and meaning when animals and man are formed. Compare Genesis 1:21 with 1:25, and then 1:26 with 1:27. One cannot argue that the 1:21 verse only pertains to “conscious life,” inasmuch as the physical bodies of the animals are also included in the stated act. Thus it is impossible to conclude that there is sufficient distinction between “bara” and “asah” so as to interpret the latter in a sense that restricts it to only meaning a “re-forming” in the Genesis narrative. Either word can, and is used to describe God’s creative acts “ex nihilo.”
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 08-07-2006, 12:12 AM   #100
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 06:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest
Some who read Genesis 1-2 have suggested, for example, that the Hebrew words translated “create” (bara) and “make” (asah) always mean entirely different things. They believe that bara means “to create,” while asah means “to re-create” or “to make over.” Thus, we are told, “the heavens and earth” were created in the beginning (vs. 1-2; supposedly a time that could have been billions of years ago), and then there was a six-day “make over” (vv. 3-31). The problem with this theory (commonly known as the Gap Theory) is that the “explanatory notes” God has given us throughout the Old Testament concerning the events recorded in Genesis 1 reveal that the words “create” (bara) and “make/made” (asah) are used interchangeably in reference to the creation of the Universe and everything in it.

Consider Exodus 20:11: “For in six days the Lord made [asah] heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day,” Gap theorists contend that this verse speaks only of God’s “re-forming” from something already in existence. Yet notice that the verse specifically speaks of the heaven and the earth—the very same things mentioned in Genesis 1:1.
I've mentioned before how I think the earliest parts of the OT reflect on ancient Semitic henotheism, so it's possible that the Jewish creation myth was written on this assumption. As such, it's very possible that "Adam" (Hebrew word, translated as "man") and "Eve" (Hebrew "yitzah," translated as "woman") were really the creation of the "Chosen People." Because they screwed up in the Garden of Eden, they were then cast onto a pre-existing Earth with already existing civilizations that were created by their own respective gods. This would aptly explain why Cain marries someone from a separate tribe who should not exist under the conventional interpretation.

Check out the link I have with the word "henotheism." It has a pretty good explanation of how it applies to ancient Israel, and how post-exilic Judaism became strictly monotheistic.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 08-07-2006, 01:59 AM   #101
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,655
Local Time: 05:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest



I did look up asah, and you're right, asah is used along with bara. Asah means "to make or form". Some people think that "asah/to make or form" cannot mean to make or form out of nothing. But you also know that that assumption is not agreed upon.
Well I appreciate you acknowledging both that you didn't know, and that assumptions i.e. interpretations are not agreed upon.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 08-07-2006, 02:40 AM   #102
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 09:03 PM
I think that this is semantics and shows the problems that arise when we entertain mythology as reality, the objective evidence is found through the scientific method whereas creation myths are subjective and culturally dependent; their claims to absolute truth are not dependent on the real world evidence only on their age and the faith that people put into them.

In the context of a science classroom the curriculum should be teaching children the most accurate description of reality (the facts) and that is the framework of evolutionary biology. Creationism and Intelligent Design simply have not presented persuasive evidence that demolishes the modern synthesis regardless of what it's propontents say.

It is a complex theory when we look at real world examples but it is verifiable, when we explain the theory of plate tectonics to children they don't know about the fluid dynamics and thermodynamics that drive mantle convection or the controversies about how plate tectonics can create structures that we are unsure about to this day, we start at an introductory level and gradually build up a base and framework of knowledge.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com