Show them Genesis 2:4 which sums up the first chapter of Genesis with "In the day that God created the heavens and the earth". Then with an honest request say to them.
That looks to me like a confusing way of wording it, for the exact reason that people will confusedly(if that's a word) ask that same question you proposed. In the NIV, it says "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created" instead of the phrasing you presented. Reading both these, it seems that "in the day" is used the same way Gramps says "back in the day, there was $different_condition...".
The explanation for the second question is both simple and obvious to someone who believes into the Lord. For someone who doesn't it's bogus, unheard of malarkey. Here it goes anyway.
He did die. And yes, before evening came. And then he lived on for 900+ years. Confused? He died spiritually. The Bible tells that man is made of three parts("made in the image of God", ever wonder if that meant God looked like a human?); body, soul(made up itself of three parts - mind, emotion, will), and spirit(in that order, outermost layer to innermost - think of three rings, one inside the other - body is outermost, soul is middle, spirit, the core). The first two were corrupted(also dead, in a sense) when Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge, and the last flat-out died. Humans were dead spiritually, and so had no link or business with God anymore - God, being holy, couldn't interact with us without a proxy anymore. That was the meat of Christ's job - restore that link, and on top of that, make it better. Besides a number of other things just as important that I'm too lazy to post, but there, you have the main idea.
First of all, I don't see why an entity that created a universe can't grow a human from a rib. It's strange that you questioned that particular episode in the Bible; was there a particular reason behind that, by the way? As for the Ark, the conceptual build is apparently seaworthy. So far, no problems. Though I'll understand if you reject my first answer out of hand.
The Bible is the "straight dope". I don't see where you're coming from on that point - clarify for me please? As for the translation issues, that's a moot point. You and I know full well that English had no presence at the time of writing, and wouldn't have been worth much to the people of the time. If it's communication errors/mistranslations/lost or dropped meanings and texts thing you're worried about, I think God, being who He is, will be(has been) able to get His point across and steer His letter to humans clear of destruction. He's pretty good at that. You'll notice that, despite the many attempts to rid the world of Bibles, it always seems to reappear(much like Israel - I believe it's the only country to be destroyed/dissolved and reform, ever). Alright, questions answered, and more besides. Have you more?
Interestingly contrary to what you've posted, the more I read the Bible, and the more I learn from science and history, the more they seem to join and support the other. The commonly joked "6000 year old Earth", for instance, isn't supported by well translated Bibles(I use one is called the "recovery version"). The KJV used to(I'm not sure, it may still) say, in Genesis 1:1-2, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2Now the earth was formless and empty..."
That wouldn't make sense though - the Hebrew there translated as "was" is later in Genesis translated as "became". Besides, in Job it says explicitly that God didn't create the earth as a formless ball. Obviously, that "was" should be a "became". Now it reads, "Now the earth became formless and empty..." . So, after the first verse of the Bible, and before the second, something monumental has happened, and now the earth is a wasteland. It explains in Job, I can't remember the chapter, but even if I could I wouldn't try to post the whole chapter, so I'll find it later and post it for curious minds. In any case, time would seem to have passed between God's creating the earth, and His restoration of it(which is described in the first chapter of Genesis), along with the creation of men. And a lot of it.
You'll find a lot of discrepancies between the common beliefs of the Bible, and the actual text. Even then you'll find discrepancies between what the text was intended to communicate, and what the translators didn't understand and decided to substitute(I believe the KJV also sometimes mentions unicorns, where the Bible reads "ox"). If you wanted to find the difference between the two(though you don't sound like the fellow who would decide to), I'd advise finding a Bible translated as directly as possible. The recovery version I mentioned above is very handy for that, and has excellent footnotes for when one is lost.
With that said - I believe into the Lord Jesus Christ, and His eternal spiritual capacities. I also believe the earth is however old carbon dating states it to be(though the technique isn't always reliable, I hear).
This Christian finds the above joke highly amusing. I'd have been "Christian mod", except I wanted to say this. Crap. This mod system is tantalizingly close to being useful.
If you're going to appeal to science, then you need to be more skeptical in the design of your test
Very true.
I did it, once, just for the sake of it. No, it had no effect on me.
There's the inconsistency of your argument. You weren't at all skeptical of your result.
In fact, 'inconsistency' is what make your whole argument groundless. While rain also tends to make me feel rested and peaceful, I hate the sound of it when I realize I'll be walking through it. By that token - Bridge Over Troubled Water probably bothers you at times. Maybe when you have a headache, or just aren't in the mood. Hitler's speeches - do they seem glorious as when you heard them so long ago? But the Lord's name has yet to fail me, and certainly not as spectacularly as the rain has.
Again, I'm not here to argue and disprove you. This debate has been going on far longer than you and I have been alive, and won't end any time soon. That's not my goal. I just want you to taste and see. When someone tells you that $new_dish is good, can you say they're wrong after putting the fork in your mouth and spitting it out? All I'm asking is that you try it. Once a day, drop your concepts and call. That's all.
Good point. I'm completely ignorant of your stance towards Jesus, as you haven't actually disagreed with me on Him being Lord. With that said, it should actually be easier to determine whether the Lord's name has a real, non-placebo effect if you don't hold it in high regard(because it would be as another control word to you). Which would make this test perfect for a lot of people who would see and read this. Again, I think you should test it(you may have, you left that unsaid as well).
Is that the case? Believe me, I've seen and studied all of these explanations before. But, alright. Let's say it's attributed to one of the three above. In that case, we should be able to achieve the same result by calling out any other name of similar status in our mind. Correct so far? But before that, let's pick a control word, to round off our test. I have a watch on my desk, so I choose the word "watch". You can pick whatever you like. Next, I'll choose another deity's name... Allah should do. I'd have picked Baal, but that would have been too old-fashioned. You can take whatever you like.
Finally, I'll begin. I'll call on each word or name three times each. Then I'll call on the Lord's name. If you like, you can try as well. I encourage you to test your theory.
But I've already told you what the result is, because I have tested. Don't think I haven't seen these explanations. Don't think I haven't studied in college and been told that the concept of God is nonsensical, ludicrous. I know it is. But in spite of that logic, there is a feeling, there is a sensation of life, clear and peaceful, when you call on that name. I'm not saying that science, or logic, or sensible thought is bad or stupid. I wish people would use it more, to be honest, I've come across so many people who would rather be right no matter the truth. I just don't care about what is bad or stupid. I have a sense of life, and I follow it. I'm not following blindly, even. I know every argument against God. I've seen and heard it all(well, I'm sure someone somewhere can hit me with a new one, but...), but it all fails to tell me why calling gives me that sense.
If you want to say I'm wrong, then you need to test it. The fact is that testing a theory is the essence of science. If that weren't true, then mice would still be born from cheese, and meat would give birth to maggots - the planet would be flat. What an insane world it would be, don't you think? I challenge the concept, present my theory, and prove it through experimentation. I'll ask that you do the same.
I tried it. The only effect was a twinge from my conscience. Sadly, there were also no cheerleaders. Something tells me that you haven't tried my suggestion, but I still suggest it. That's all.
As a surprisingly well-minded poster has already said, why are you assuming I don't? I do spend quite a bit of time studying, especially in science(though math is more my thing). Logic I don't believe is something that can be taught, per se - to be honest, you have to experience and think critically on your own if you want to develop solid logic standpoints.
Perhaps I misread the intention behind the GP, but from my viewpoint it seemed as though he was refusing to learn about the subject, which would make the GP himself wrong. Then again, I could have had my Troll-Goggles on at the time.
Obviously if you try to do that, you'll never finish. It's infinite. You can never soak the entirety into your mind, no matter how long you study, no matter how long you live.
Now, just because you can't touch the essence of pi with your finger tips, or ever fully explain pi, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I have to use it in my trig homework almost everyday, you bet your bottom dollar it exists.
But the above doesn't tell you at all how to see the existence of God or use Him in your daily life. So do something radical, and try this. Everyday, at least once a day, find a time where you are alone(or surrounded by people, but it might be easier for you if you're not in company), and say out loud, "Oh Lord Jesus". Obviously, if you're right, if He doesn't exist, nothing will happen. But if I'm right, you will suddenly feel at peace. Sheepish and silly, I'm sure, but I did at first too. Once a day. It won't hurt anything, it takes two seconds. Oh Lord Jesus.
I sincerely hope that was a sardonic statement. If that's the condition of people in general today, we're going to have a sticky few decades ahead of us.
All ideas for a new design were remarked to be "colorless". A brilliant concept artist, in a moment of brilliance, shouted "That's it! No colors!" Aaaaand, I see little difference. Honestly, the lack of colors worsens it. So many games just spit out the color of the button for sequences, and now the color is gone. What a retarded thing to do...
Slashdot Mirror
That looks to me like a confusing way of wording it, for the exact reason that people will confusedly(if that's a word) ask that same question you proposed. In the NIV, it says "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created" instead of the phrasing you presented. Reading both these, it seems that "in the day" is used the same way Gramps says "back in the day, there was $different_condition...".
The explanation for the second question is both simple and obvious to someone who believes into the Lord. For someone who doesn't it's bogus, unheard of malarkey. Here it goes anyway.
He did die. And yes, before evening came. And then he lived on for 900+ years. Confused?
He died spiritually. The Bible tells that man is made of three parts("made in the image of God", ever wonder if that meant God looked like a human?); body, soul(made up itself of three parts - mind, emotion, will), and spirit(in that order, outermost layer to innermost - think of three rings, one inside the other - body is outermost, soul is middle, spirit, the core). The first two were corrupted(also dead, in a sense) when Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge, and the last flat-out died. Humans were dead spiritually, and so had no link or business with God anymore - God, being holy, couldn't interact with us without a proxy anymore. That was the meat of Christ's job - restore that link, and on top of that, make it better. Besides a number of other things just as important that I'm too lazy to post, but there, you have the main idea.
Ah, Raenex. We meet again.
First of all, I don't see why an entity that created a universe can't grow a human from a rib. It's strange that you questioned that particular episode in the Bible; was there a particular reason behind that, by the way? As for the Ark, the conceptual build is apparently seaworthy. So far, no problems. Though I'll understand if you reject my first answer out of hand.
The Bible is the "straight dope". I don't see where you're coming from on that point - clarify for me please? As for the translation issues, that's a moot point. You and I know full well that English had no presence at the time of writing, and wouldn't have been worth much to the people of the time. If it's communication errors/mistranslations/lost or dropped meanings and texts thing you're worried about, I think God, being who He is, will be(has been) able to get His point across and steer His letter to humans clear of destruction. He's pretty good at that. You'll notice that, despite the many attempts to rid the world of Bibles, it always seems to reappear(much like Israel - I believe it's the only country to be destroyed/dissolved and reform, ever). Alright, questions answered, and more besides. Have you more?
[citation needed]
That was pretty vague, unfortunately. Toss me an example or two to illustrate.
Shows how stupid I can be. Thanks for the heads up.
Interestingly contrary to what you've posted, the more I read the Bible, and the more I learn from science and history, the more they seem to join and support the other. The commonly joked "6000 year old Earth", for instance, isn't supported by well translated Bibles(I use one is called the "recovery version"). The KJV used to(I'm not sure, it may still) say, in Genesis 1:1-2, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2Now the earth was formless and empty..."
That wouldn't make sense though - the Hebrew there translated as "was" is later in Genesis translated as "became". Besides, in Job it says explicitly that God didn't create the earth as a formless ball. Obviously, that "was" should be a "became". Now it reads, "Now the earth became formless and empty..." . So, after the first verse of the Bible, and before the second, something monumental has happened, and now the earth is a wasteland. It explains in Job, I can't remember the chapter, but even if I could I wouldn't try to post the whole chapter, so I'll find it later and post it for curious minds. In any case, time would seem to have passed between God's creating the earth, and His restoration of it(which is described in the first chapter of Genesis), along with the creation of men. And a lot of it.
You'll find a lot of discrepancies between the common beliefs of the Bible, and the actual text. Even then you'll find discrepancies between what the text was intended to communicate, and what the translators didn't understand and decided to substitute(I believe the KJV also sometimes mentions unicorns, where the Bible reads "ox"). If you wanted to find the difference between the two(though you don't sound like the fellow who would decide to), I'd advise finding a Bible translated as directly as possible. The recovery version I mentioned above is very handy for that, and has excellent footnotes for when one is lost.
With that said - I believe into the Lord Jesus Christ, and His eternal spiritual capacities. I also believe the earth is however old carbon dating states it to be(though the technique isn't always reliable, I hear).
This Christian finds the above joke highly amusing. I'd have been "Christian mod", except I wanted to say this. Crap. This mod system is tantalizingly close to being useful.
In any case, they're *still* down for me XD. This is the kind of thing that makes me smile.
Finally?
Your five year old friends probably told you broccoli was yucky, too.
I am addicted to BvS. Just sayin'.
Some circumstances would say otherwise.
BEETLE JUICE.
Actually, I wasn't even thinking of that when I saw this article - here was my first thought association. New Dark Age?
Last reply - this is turning into an argument.
Very true.
There's the inconsistency of your argument. You weren't at all skeptical of your result.
In fact, 'inconsistency' is what make your whole argument groundless. While rain also tends to make me feel rested and peaceful, I hate the sound of it when I realize I'll be walking through it. By that token - Bridge Over Troubled Water probably bothers you at times. Maybe when you have a headache, or just aren't in the mood. Hitler's speeches - do they seem glorious as when you heard them so long ago? But the Lord's name has yet to fail me, and certainly not as spectacularly as the rain has.
Again, I'm not here to argue and disprove you. This debate has been going on far longer than you and I have been alive, and won't end any time soon. That's not my goal. I just want you to taste and see. When someone tells you that $new_dish is good, can you say they're wrong after putting the fork in your mouth and spitting it out? All I'm asking is that you try it. Once a day, drop your concepts and call. That's all.
Good point. I'm completely ignorant of your stance towards Jesus, as you haven't actually disagreed with me on Him being Lord. With that said, it should actually be easier to determine whether the Lord's name has a real, non-placebo effect if you don't hold it in high regard(because it would be as another control word to you). Which would make this test perfect for a lot of people who would see and read this. Again, I think you should test it(you may have, you left that unsaid as well).
Is that the case? Believe me, I've seen and studied all of these explanations before.
But, alright. Let's say it's attributed to one of the three above. In that case, we should be able to achieve the same result by calling out any other name of similar status in our mind. Correct so far?
But before that, let's pick a control word, to round off our test. I have a watch on my desk, so I choose the word "watch". You can pick whatever you like. Next, I'll choose another deity's name... Allah should do. I'd have picked Baal, but that would have been too old-fashioned. You can take whatever you like.
Finally, I'll begin. I'll call on each word or name three times each. Then I'll call on the Lord's name. If you like, you can try as well. I encourage you to test your theory.
But I've already told you what the result is, because I have tested. Don't think I haven't seen these explanations. Don't think I haven't studied in college and been told that the concept of God is nonsensical, ludicrous. I know it is. But in spite of that logic, there is a feeling, there is a sensation of life, clear and peaceful, when you call on that name. I'm not saying that science, or logic, or sensible thought is bad or stupid. I wish people would use it more, to be honest, I've come across so many people who would rather be right no matter the truth. I just don't care about what is bad or stupid. I have a sense of life, and I follow it. I'm not following blindly, even. I know every argument against God. I've seen and heard it all(well, I'm sure someone somewhere can hit me with a new one, but...), but it all fails to tell me why calling gives me that sense.
If you want to say I'm wrong, then you need to test it. The fact is that testing a theory is the essence of science. If that weren't true, then mice would still be born from cheese, and meat would give birth to maggots - the planet would be flat. What an insane world it would be, don't you think? I challenge the concept, present my theory, and prove it through experimentation. I'll ask that you do the same.
I tried it. The only effect was a twinge from my conscience. Sadly, there were also no cheerleaders. Something tells me that you haven't tried my suggestion, but I still suggest it. That's all.
As a surprisingly well-minded poster has already said, why are you assuming I don't? I do spend quite a bit of time studying, especially in science(though math is more my thing). Logic I don't believe is something that can be taught, per se - to be honest, you have to experience and think critically on your own if you want to develop solid logic standpoints.
Perhaps I misread the intention behind the GP, but from my viewpoint it seemed as though he was refusing to learn about the subject, which would make the GP himself wrong. Then again, I could have had my Troll-Goggles on at the time.
Tell me what pi is.
Obviously if you try to do that, you'll never finish. It's infinite. You can never soak the entirety into your mind, no matter how long you study, no matter how long you live.
Now, just because you can't touch the essence of pi with your finger tips, or ever fully explain pi, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I have to use it in my trig homework almost everyday, you bet your bottom dollar it exists.
But the above doesn't tell you at all how to see the existence of God or use Him in your daily life. So do something radical, and try this. Everyday, at least once a day, find a time where you are alone(or surrounded by people, but it might be easier for you if you're not in company), and say out loud, "Oh Lord Jesus". Obviously, if you're right, if He doesn't exist, nothing will happen. But if I'm right, you will suddenly feel at peace. Sheepish and silly, I'm sure, but I did at first too. Once a day. It won't hurt anything, it takes two seconds. Oh Lord Jesus.
...I don't believe that has anything to do with the parent's comment, good sir. Look at you, warping the conversation to fit your primitive disgust.
I sincerely hope that was a sardonic statement. If that's the condition of people in general today, we're going to have a sticky few decades ahead of us.
That begs the question - isn't Atheism the same?
All ideas for a new design were remarked to be "colorless". A brilliant concept artist, in a moment of brilliance, shouted "That's it! No colors!"
Aaaaand, I see little difference. Honestly, the lack of colors worsens it. So many games just spit out the color of the button for sequences, and now the color is gone. What a retarded thing to do...
There's one easy test to settle this.
How fast can he run?