Genesis 2:2 He rested on the seventh day from all the work he had undertaken.

[37818]

So it took god, who btw is said to be non temporal, nearly 14 billion years of creating before finally getting around to creating human beings on earth?

God being the Uncaused Existence. The known universe seems to have had it origin some 13.8 billion years past. And the the solidified rocks in our solar system date to be some 4.5 billion years. And there is a saying that that "one day is" with God "as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

[JimL]

God being the Uncaused Existence. The known universe seems to have had it origin some 13.8 billion years past. And the the solidified rocks in our solar system date to be some 4.5 billion years. And there is a saying that that "one day is" with God "as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

Well as I have already shown, that a biblical day is as a thousand years is way of the mark. One biblical day would need be more like 666,666,667 earthly days. The sixth biblical day, the time of the creation of A+E, came nearly 14 billion years after the creation process of the universe began.

[37818]

Well as I have already shown, that a biblical day is as a thousand years is way of the mark. One biblical day would need be more like 666,666,667 earthly days. The sixth biblical day, the time of the creation of A+E, came nearly 14 billion years after the creation process of the universe began.

You are taking a Biblical metaphor as a literalism. ". . . as . . . ." It did not matter if it says hundred years or ten thousand years. Like an infinite to an infinitesimal.

[psstein]

How about we start with Joseph Campbell. Ever hear of him?

Mythologist, no PhD, and dead. Try again.

Relevant living scholars.

[psstein]

Richard Dawkins would disagree with you: "It is nonsense to argue that something exists outside of space and time? When say something "exists", we mean that it can be observed, or its effects can be experienced in space and time. If one asserts that god exists "outside time," this leads to a conclusion that he couldn't do anything, including creating the universe, because time is the measure of change. If there is no time, there is no change. If there is no change, there is no action. If there is no action, there is no creation. If God were to exist outside of time, he would be impotent to do anything at all!"

This is why Dawkins is thought to be an incompetent by atheist and theist philosophers alike.

[Tassman]

This is why Dawkins is thought to be an incompetent by atheist and theist philosophers alike.

Great argument.

And your refutation.............?

[Tassman]

You are taking a Biblical metaphor as a literalism. ". . . as . . . ." It did not matter if it says hundred years or ten thousand years. Like an infinite to an infinitesimal.

So you would agree that the Adam and Eve story is also "Biblical metaphor" because science tells us that they cannot be literally true.

[JonathanL]

Great argument.

And your refutation.............?

There's not an actual argument there to refute in the first place.

[tabibito]

By myth I don't mean to say that jesus himself, the preacher, did not exist as a human being, that is still a matter of debate, what I mean to say is that the history of his life as told in the NT is a myth. You show me a scholar who believes that Jesus walked on water, fed thousands with 2 fish, talked with demons and cast them into a herd of swine, that long dead saints climbed out of their graves and went about town conversing with the folk etc etc. and I'll show you someones whose beliefs have nothing to do with their scholarly qualifications.

Some of Matthew's record can logically be considered myth or hyperbole to be sure, but given that I have yet to find one scholar who disallows all miracle accounts and hasn't also given a mistaken exposition of one elementary statement of scripture or another, I consider such scholars to be somewhat unreliable.

[37818]

So you would agree that the Adam and Eve story is also "Biblical metaphor" because science tells us that they cannot be literally true.

No. I hold they to be historical persons. By reason Jesus of Nazareth cites Genesis regarding their creation. Besides the Apostle Paul.

Science does not refute the Biblical creation of man.

[JimL]

Mythologist, no PhD, and dead. Try again.

Relevant living scholars.

Hey psstein, only christian biblical scholars believe the bible to be reliable history. Apparently you believe that all biblical scholars are christian. Try Prof. Francesca Stavrakopoulou.

[JimL]

Some of Matthew's record can logically be considered myth or hyperbole to be sure, but given that I have yet to find one scholar who disallows all miracle accounts and hasn't also given a mistaken exposition of one elementary statement of scripture or another, I consider such scholars to be somewhat unreliable.

Of course you find them to be unreliable, you are already invested in your belief of the NT Jesus and his miracles. You can't find such scholars, those who refute the miracle claims, because you are obviously not looking for them.

[JimL]

This is why Dawkins is thought to be an incompetent by atheist and theist philosophers alike.

Says who, you?

[JimL]

You are taking a Biblical metaphor as a literalism. ". . . as . . . ." It did not matter if it says hundred years or ten thousand years. Like an infinite to an infinitesimal.

I'm just pointing out a fact. The universe, that god supposedly created for human beings began 14 billion years ago, and yet human beings just came on the scene.

[Tassman]

No. I hold they to be historical persons. By reason Jesus of Nazareth cites Genesis regarding their creation. Besides the Apostle Paul.

Science does not refute the Biblical creation of man.

It does, in fact. Science tells us that Adam and Eve are fictions; the considerable evidence renders this beyond doubt. That Paul or Jesus thought otherwise is irrelevant. They were wrong. This is not to say that they were stupid or careless. Two thousand years ago, for a Jew to believe in Adam and Eve made sense. But time moves on and our knowledge grows and our understanding of the world evolves.