The different nature in the past allows literal Genesis

[dad]

Science today is based on the nature and laws of today. If the nature was not the same, then things like people living 1000 years could be natural in the former nature. The question is does science know it was this same nature that existed or not? The anser is no. It only assumed it was.

[dianaiad]

......

Period. It is a young earth after all.

Moderator Comment

Claims like this require more support than a personal declaration of 'period.' Please supply that support, or acknowledge that your position is opinion only.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 628 by dad]

Here's the thing, you won't be able to prove the words of Jesus are not, well, the words of Jesus.

Here are some of the things Jesus said taken from the Gospel According to Thomas. Prove that he DIDN'T say them.



Jesus said, "The person old in days won't hesitate to ask a little child seven days old about the place of life, and that person will live."
***

Jesus said, "Lucky is the lion that the human will eat, so that the lion becomes human. And foul is the human that the lion will eat, and the lion still will become human."

***
Jesus said, "You see the sliver in your friend's eye, but you don't see the timber in your own eye. When you take the timber out of your own eye, then you will see well enough to remove the sliver from your friend's eye."

***
Jesus said, "If a blind person leads a blind person, both of them will fall into a hole."

***
Jesus said, "There are many standing at the door, but those who are alone will enter the bridal suite."

***
Jesus said, "Whoever does not hate father and mother cannot be my disciple, and whoever does not hate brothers and sisters, and carry the cross as I do, will not be worthy of me."

***
Jesus said, "Whoever knows the father and the mother will be called the child of a whore."

***
Jesus said, "One can't enter a strong person's house and take it by force without tying his hands. Then one can loot his house."


http://gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html

Since the gospels refer to Jesus saying He would send the spirit to inspire them to get it right, there is no worries about what gospel writers were 'really' thinking. Not at all.

In other words, the Gospels are valid because the Gospels indicate that Jesus said he would inspire valid Gospels. What about these Gospels?

1. Gospel of the Ebionites

2. Gospel of the Egyptians

3. Gospel of Marcion

4. Gospel of Peter

5. Gospel of the Twelve Apostles

6. Gospels of Barnabas and Bartholomew

7. Gospels of the Nativity

8. Protevangelium of James

9. Pseudo-Matthew

10. Gospel of Joseph the Carpenter

11. Gospels of the Infancy or Childhood

12. Gospel of Thomas

13. Arabic Gospel of the Childhood

14. Gospels of the Passion and Resurrection

15.Gospel of Peter (as above)

16. Gospel of Nicodemus

Well, God used that. It was confirmed as inspired later by other believers.

In other words it's true because Christians have declared it to be so.

You put a lot of faith in Papias. Paul met Jesus. Heard of his stuff? Peter and John met Jesus...heard of their stuff? These guys were aware of other writings also. I would take Papius' opinion with a grain of salt.

If you have better information concerning who wrote Gospel Mark please present it.

He left it by sending His spirit to help those who would record what happened get it right. He never even said the ones who did so would have to be best buds on earth! If there was anything wrong with the gospels you better blame Jesus, as He oversaw the project Personally.

It took him awhile. The formal canonization of the current 27 books of the NT by the Catholic church did not occur Second Council of Trullan in 692. That's about 662 years after Jesus was executed. Here is a list of Christian writings that Christians had to choose from prior to that.



1 and 2 Clement
Shepherd of Hermas
Didache
Epistle of Barnabas
Apocalypse of Peter
Third Epistle to the Corinthians
Gospel of Thomas
Oxyrhynchus Gospels
Egerton Gospel
Fayyum Fragment
Dialogue of the Saviour
The Gospel of the Ebionites ("GE") – 7 quotations by Epiphanius.
The Gospel of the Hebrews ("GH") – 1 quotation ascribed to Cyril of Jerusalem, plus GH 2–7 quotations by Clement, Origen, and Jerome.
The Gospel of the Nazarenes
Gospel of the Ebionites
Gospel of the Hebrews
Gospel of the Nazoraeans
Secret Gospel of Mark
Gospel of Marcion
Gospel of Judas
Gospel of Thomas
Gospel of Marcion (mid 2nd century)
Gospel of Mani (3rd century)
Gospel of Apelles (mid-late 2nd century)
Gospel of Bardesanes (late 2nd - early 3rd century)
Gospel of Basilides (mid 2nd century)
Gospel of Peter
Gospel of Nicodemus (also called the "Acts of Pilate")
Pseudo-Cyril of Jerusalem, On the Life and the Passion of Christ
Gospel of Bartholomew
Questions of Bartholomew
Resurrection of Jesus
Apocryphon of James (also called the "Secret Book of James")
Book of Thomas the Contender
Dialogue of the Saviour
Gospel of Judas (also called the "Gospel of Judas Iscariot")
Gospel of Mary (also called the "Gospel of Mary Magdalene")
Gospel of Philip
Greek Gospel of the Egyptians (distinct from the Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians)
The Sophia of Jesus Christ
Coptic Apocalypse of Paul (distinct from the Apocalypse of Paul)
Gospel of Truth
Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter (distinct from the Apocalypse of Peter)
Pistis Sophia
Second Treatise of the Great Seth
Apocryphon of John (also called the "Secret Gospel of John")
Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians (distinct from the Greek Gospel of the Egyptians)
Trimorphic Protennoia
Acts of Andrew
Acts of Barnabas
Acts of John
Acts of the Martyrs
Acts of Paul
Acts of Paul and Thecla
Acts of Peter
Acts of Peter and Andrew
Acts of Peter and Paul
Acts of Peter and the Twelve
Acts of Philip
Acts of Pilate
Acts of Thomas
Acts of Timothy
Acts of Xanthippe, Polyxena, and Rebecca
Epistle of Barnabas
Epistles of Clement
Epistle of the Corinthians to Paul
Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans
Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians
Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians
Epistle to Diognetus
Epistle to the Laodiceans (an epistle in the name of Paul)
Epistle to Seneca the Younger (an epistle in the name of Paul)
Third Epistle to the Corinthians - accepted in the past by some in the Armenian Orthodox church.
Apocalypse of Paul (distinct from the Coptic Apocalypse of Paul)
Apocalypse of Peter (distinct from the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter)
Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius
Apocalypse of Thomas (also called the Revelation of Thomas)
Apocalypse of Stephen (also called the Revelation of Stephen)
First Apocalypse of James (also called the First Revelation of James)
Second Apocalypse of James (also called the Second Revelation of James)
The Shepherd of Hermas
The Descent of Mary

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament_apocrypha

[Clownboat]

The evidence of the bible and the timing mandate that the adapting and evolving in that former nature was fast. The only way one can claim it could not have been so, is to provide scientific proof/evidence that the state and forces and laws were the same as now. Since you cannot do so, you may not question the record of Scripture in any meaningful way.

dad, I don't see any evidence for this rapid form of evolution that you claim happened. You imagine nice stories to justify an old story later penned in a book, but I don't question that you have an imagination as I assume we all do.

I question your evidence for this rapid form of evolution. If it happened, please provide whatever evidence you have seen that has convinced you that it took place.

Your Bible no more helps to explain your imagination than a Dr. Suess book would prove your imagination wrong.

[dad]

No ... you've linked to a graphic to (presumably) support your hypothesis of a "different nature in the past", and it does just the opposite. The horizontal axis on that graphic is linear in time, so it implies that "creation" happened in 4004 BC ...

The Bible creation date is well known. (accurate to within a few hundred years)

with no change in the time axis all the way back to that date. It is a linear scale, so time intervals on and after 4004 BC are exactly the same as they are now, according to this amateur graphic.

A year is a year, what is the point? A day was still a day. Now actually, a year in the bible is 360 days. So there seems to be a small difference in a day since the nature change. But that could be due to the earth or sun or whatever having somewhat different orbits, and not (if that is what you are suggesting) ..some difference in time here.

Remember, when I ask if time is the same in the far universe, I never am asking about earth, now or in the past.

4004 BC isn't the distant past ... there were several million people on Earth at that time (estimates range from about 7M to 28M), the neolithic revolution was in full swing and had been for a few thousand years, and we have structures and all kinds of other evidence from that time (and long before your "creation" date) to verify the existence of humans continually from 4004 BC until now, with no wipeout due to a global flood, or anything else.

Finally a point. OK, you still take your religious dates seriously. Sorry, I sure don;t. They are wholly belief based and totally depend on the same nature having existed in the past. 100%. Unless you prove that to be the case there are no dates beyond the approx time of the nature change. My deduction is that the change was a something like 100 to 300 or so years after the flood. The flood is commonly dated to approx 4500 years ago.

Before the nature change there is no reason to assume that most life on earth could leave fossil remains. (so the fossil record is hopelessly partial and not representative of life on earth if the nature was different!)

[dad]

dad, I don't see any evidence for this rapid form of evolution that you claim happened..

I don't see any evidence for this slow form of evolution that you claim happened. So there. Believe what you like. If one believes the bible, one might assume that the evolution was rapid, considering the time frame involved.

I question your evidence for this rapid form of evolution.

I question your evidence for this present nature slow form of evolution you claim also existed in the past. If it happened, please provide whatever evidence you have seen that has convinced you that a same nature existed in the far past.

As for me I claim that science doesn't know. That is my claim. Feel free to show us otherwise. Until then your fable ranks lower than a Dr Sues tale. Literally.

[dad]

Here are some of the things Jesus said taken from the Gospel According to Thomas. Prove that he DIDN'T say them

Who really cares?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 640 by dad]

Remember, when I ask if time is the same in the far universe, I never am asking about earth, now or in the past.

Really? That is in stark contrast to the statement in your OP:

"Science today is based on the nature and laws of today. If the nature was not the same, then things like people living 1000 years could be natural in the former nature"

Didn't these people supposedly live to 900+ years on planet Earth? You can't have it both ways. If the explanation of these humans living to 900+ years was originally because there was a "different nature" in the past ... what aspect of that nature was different if it wasn't time. You've just stated that time was the same all the way back to "creation" in 4004 BC, give or take a few hundred years, on this planet.

A year being 360 days instead of 365.25 days (however you arrived at that number) can't explain someone living 800+ years longer than any human as actually ever lived on this planet (5.25 days/year would take ~70 years to cover just one year delta). So what aspect of nature was different in biblical times if it wasn't time, which you've admitted was not different?

Finally a point. OK, you still take your religious dates seriously. Sorry, I sure don;t. They are wholly belief based and totally depend on the same nature having existed in the past. 100%.

Again ... since time intervals were exactly the same from 4004 BC through today (as you finally admit, and that the rest of the world knew already), what was different in the "former nature" if it wasn't time?

Unless you prove that to be the case there are no dates beyond the approx time of the nature change. My deduction is that the change was a something like 100 to 300 or so years after the flood. The flood is commonly dated to approx 4500 years ago.

And? Since time has been exactly the same from "creation" at 4004 BC ... 6022 years ago ... through today, what nature change happened 100-300 years after the supposed flood 4500 year ago? It wasn't any change in time or time intervals, so what was it? What "nature change" are you talking about? Time is out of the picture now.

[Justin108]

Of course, science is of the fishbowl, in the fishbowl and models the future and past by the fishbowl. Their little overrated fishbowl philosophy is comical. For anything to be believable it needs some basis. Science must scurry to find some basis for it's claim of a same nature in the past.

Actually, science starts with the basis and then becomes a theory. Science doesn't start with a claim and then look for evidence for that claim. Science starts with evidence, and once the evidence is investigated, it results in a scientific theory. You're confusing science with religion. You're insecure about your own religion. You can't bring it up to the level of science and so now you're trying to bring science down to the same level as religion. You're failing miserably at this as your criticisms are laden with hypocrisies and based entirely on desperate ad hoc notions of ever changing laws of nature that you don't even take seriously yourself.

The whole field of engineering would cease to exist without the belief that the laws of nature are constant and consistent. And again, you make this very same assumption in your day to day life. When you cook, when you drive, when you eat... all of this functioning is dependent on the laws of nature being constant and consistent.

You have engineered nothing in Adam or Noah's day. All engineering is in the present. Strawman.

Not only do you have no clue about science, you also have no idea how logic works. Even if you don't agree with the points I just made, what I said is in no way a strawman.

This will probably be my last response to you. Any attempt at a rational discussion with you is playing Pigeon chess.

[marco]

Here are some of the things Jesus said taken from the Gospel According to Thomas. Prove that he DIDN'T say them

Who really cares?

Moderator Comment

Avoid non-contributing one liners. If you don't care, don't comment.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[dad]

Really? That is in stark contrast to the statement in your OP:

"Science today is based on the nature and laws of today. If the nature was not the same, then things like people living 1000 years could be natural in the former nature"

Didn't these people supposedly live to 900+ years on planet Earth? You can't have it both ways. If the explanation of these humans living to 900+ years was originally because there was a "different nature" in the past ... what aspect of that nature was different if it wasn't time. You've just stated that time was the same all the way back to "creation" in 4004 BC, give or take a few hundred years, on this planet.

Right, people lived that long. Noah was several hundred years old at the time of the flood, and lived centuries more after. Not sure what your problem is. Being old does make the earth older!

A year being 360 days instead of 365.25 days (however you arrived at that number) can't explain someone living 800+ years longer than any human as actually ever lived on this planet (5.25 days/year would take ~70 years to cover just one year delta). So what aspect of nature was different in biblical times if it wasn't time, which you've admitted was not different?

It was not meant to explain any age difference. It is just an amazing fact of Scripture. In the future also we see the year being 360 days.
I deduce that the nature change affected the cycles/orbits somewhat, so there is a few days a year difference in night and day here. That will change again, back to normal. You see the present arrangement/nature is temporary according to the bible. Yet science sees only the present state and bases all things on it.

Again ... since time intervals were exactly the same from 4004 BC through today (as you finally admit, and that the rest of the world knew already), what was different in the "former nature" if it wasn't time?

That is the 64 dollar question! Ha. If science knew that it would get somewhere.

I could guess but why bother? Maybe wicked man doesn't need to know tight now. Maybe man has to have limitations to keep from doing too much evil/harm. After all, imagine if Hitler were to live 1000 years! People who go real bad now have less time to do damage. No accident, that.

Why do you think we have to know HOW God tweaked creation. and will tweak it back again one day? Science doesn't so much as realize it was different or not. Talk about kindergarten.