ChatterBank0 min ago
Is Death Really The End?
To be fair, however, you must face the fact that the confusion is caused by the many religions that muddy the clear waters of Bible teachings with fallacies and legends. When you ignore the traditions and myths and stick to what the Bible actually says, you discover a teaching that makes sense.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by goodlife. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Goodlife's "days" are 7000 years long, LG. So the earth was created on "day" 2 about 40,000 years ago. Dry land, vegetation and trees appeared on "day" 3, surviving an known period without the sun, which wasn't created until about 25,000 years ago on "day" 4, when He made the moon and stars too. By the time that Adam was created we're back more or less in line with Bishop Usher. After that God had his rest day, also 7000 years. The last 1000 years of the rest day are the millennial reign of Christ. This began in 1975 (sorry, got that wrong,it began/will begin very shortly after that). Goodlife wasn't a JW in '75, so has only seen the air-brushed version of yet another false prophecy.
V-E@
As we have no exact idea of the length of each “creative” day, it is presumptuousness on our part to say just how long the earth and the universe have been established. A “day” can be of any length. The term “day” can be applied to any particular time span for example, we say, “in our father’s day”, or in the “day of Queen/King.....” this does not give any particular time but covers a wide timespan.
It is also presumptious of you to say I was not a JW in 1975!
As we have no exact idea of the length of each “creative” day, it is presumptuousness on our part to say just how long the earth and the universe have been established. A “day” can be of any length. The term “day” can be applied to any particular time span for example, we say, “in our father’s day”, or in the “day of Queen/King.....” this does not give any particular time but covers a wide timespan.
It is also presumptious of you to say I was not a JW in 1975!
Goodlife, //The term “day” can be applied to any particular time span for example, we say, “in our father’s day”, or in the “day of Queen/King.....” this does not give any particular time but covers a wide timespan.//
That’s a cop out. Those examples do not indicate the length of a day, but rather ‘during the time of’. Listening to you, one could be forgiven for thinking that your almighty God was incapable of creating the universe in 6 days. So much for his omnipotence - and for your inerrant bible that leaves you to guess. I still want to know how you differentiate between the various lengths of the biblical ‘day’, because at that rate Jesus would have been roaming the wilderness for an inordinate amount of time.
That’s a cop out. Those examples do not indicate the length of a day, but rather ‘during the time of’. Listening to you, one could be forgiven for thinking that your almighty God was incapable of creating the universe in 6 days. So much for his omnipotence - and for your inerrant bible that leaves you to guess. I still want to know how you differentiate between the various lengths of the biblical ‘day’, because at that rate Jesus would have been roaming the wilderness for an inordinate amount of time.
@kHandro - There are several different hypotheses concerning the creation of the universe - and what went before. I am not well enough versed in cosmology and physics to have a meaningful opinion.
Mulitverses, The Universe as a much older structure, containing within it differing domains, Expansion- Contraction (Big Bang- Big Crunch), Serial Big Bangs ( which is i think what you were referring to? ). Branes, Superstrings, Quantum Fluctuations. All have their proponents, and they all claim at least some observational evidence to support the hypothesis. My brain hurts when I start contemplating all these competing ideas too clearly ;)
@Goodlife - it is very clear to me that only when different disciplines of science all pointed categorically to an old earth, one around 4.5 billion years old, did we see this reimagining of what a "day" might represent. For creationists, the idea that the word day could be considered plastic, and not solely mean a 24 hour cycle would seem quite literally, a godsend. Now creationists could claim tha each of the 6 days of the creation myth represented a geological age! Brilliant ruse! The Gospels triumph, indeed, are now vindicated by science! God- 1 Puny Human Science - 0.
Except that it does not end there does it? The creation story is riddled with scientific inconsistency, quite apart from what constitutes the length of a day. "Light and Dark" was created chronologically before the Sun and Moon - but a later verse claims that the Sun and the Moon were needed to actually create the Light and Dark!
And whilst we are at it - If we ignore that inconsistency, and accept that God created the Sun and the Moon to provide different levels of light during the day and night, why was his handiwork not more consistent? Why not redesign everything so we did not have greate tranches of desert, which is a hostile terrain for humans? And if the moon was designed to offer a lesser amount of light during daylight hours, why not make sure it did not wax and wane, or sometimes did not show at all?
Lousy design.
Somewhere in there is also the notion that the Earth was created before the Stars. Patent nonsense, completely at odds with observational evidence.
More inconsistencies - Plants were created before the sun, and the moon, and the stars - so if a day represented a geological age, how did those plants survive at absolute zero and in the absence of light?
Its a mythical narrative, a story to be told around a campfire, and every civilisation has their own variant. To try and assert that these myths represent a true chronological narrative of the creation of the universe and the planet is risible and absurd - to continue to deny the inconsistencies and attempt to refute or subvert the science is simply contemptible.
Mulitverses, The Universe as a much older structure, containing within it differing domains, Expansion- Contraction (Big Bang- Big Crunch), Serial Big Bangs ( which is i think what you were referring to? ). Branes, Superstrings, Quantum Fluctuations. All have their proponents, and they all claim at least some observational evidence to support the hypothesis. My brain hurts when I start contemplating all these competing ideas too clearly ;)
@Goodlife - it is very clear to me that only when different disciplines of science all pointed categorically to an old earth, one around 4.5 billion years old, did we see this reimagining of what a "day" might represent. For creationists, the idea that the word day could be considered plastic, and not solely mean a 24 hour cycle would seem quite literally, a godsend. Now creationists could claim tha each of the 6 days of the creation myth represented a geological age! Brilliant ruse! The Gospels triumph, indeed, are now vindicated by science! God- 1 Puny Human Science - 0.
Except that it does not end there does it? The creation story is riddled with scientific inconsistency, quite apart from what constitutes the length of a day. "Light and Dark" was created chronologically before the Sun and Moon - but a later verse claims that the Sun and the Moon were needed to actually create the Light and Dark!
And whilst we are at it - If we ignore that inconsistency, and accept that God created the Sun and the Moon to provide different levels of light during the day and night, why was his handiwork not more consistent? Why not redesign everything so we did not have greate tranches of desert, which is a hostile terrain for humans? And if the moon was designed to offer a lesser amount of light during daylight hours, why not make sure it did not wax and wane, or sometimes did not show at all?
Lousy design.
Somewhere in there is also the notion that the Earth was created before the Stars. Patent nonsense, completely at odds with observational evidence.
More inconsistencies - Plants were created before the sun, and the moon, and the stars - so if a day represented a geological age, how did those plants survive at absolute zero and in the absence of light?
Its a mythical narrative, a story to be told around a campfire, and every civilisation has their own variant. To try and assert that these myths represent a true chronological narrative of the creation of the universe and the planet is risible and absurd - to continue to deny the inconsistencies and attempt to refute or subvert the science is simply contemptible.
It's really chalk and cheese here; Though I cannot support what goodlife says, the hermeneutic acceptance of the scriptures does not allow for interpretation. I quote; 'A normal hermeneutic of Scripture means that unless the verse or passage clearly indicates the author was using figurative language, it should be understood it in its normal sense. We are not to look for other meanings if the natural meaning of the sentence makes sense. Also, we are not to spiritualize Scripture by assigning meanings to words or phrases when it is clear the author, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, meant it to be understood as it is written.'
As long as goodlife subscribes to this thesis, no amount reasoning can lead to a positional shift. We are looking at fundamentalism here and as with Islam, it's a case of accepting all or nothing.
As long as goodlife subscribes to this thesis, no amount reasoning can lead to a positional shift. We are looking at fundamentalism here and as with Islam, it's a case of accepting all or nothing.
Will comment later on your question, Khandro.
Apologies to you, Goodlife, for my presumption. I thought I'd read one of your posts saying that you became a JW in the eighties. My mistake. Maybe that was Truthabounds. When did JWs stop believing in the 7000 year day? This has been taught since Russell, and was used by Knorr and Franz to create the 1975 hysteria.
Apologies to you, Goodlife, for my presumption. I thought I'd read one of your posts saying that you became a JW in the eighties. My mistake. Maybe that was Truthabounds. When did JWs stop believing in the 7000 year day? This has been taught since Russell, and was used by Knorr and Franz to create the 1975 hysteria.
If they are growing up and stopping cutting and pasting that is all to the good. But to suggest that it is too long or too complicated for them to offer their own interpretation - thats just lazy. The rest of us do it.
And if you stop cutting and pasting, thats great - just offer a preicis and a link to the site that contains the information that you wish to impart. That has the virtue of brevity, attribution and contextual accuracy.
And if you stop cutting and pasting, thats great - just offer a preicis and a link to the site that contains the information that you wish to impart. That has the virtue of brevity, attribution and contextual accuracy.
mojo- jo-jo / /lazygun
thank -s
I've been thinking about some of the answers to questions relating to life and the beginning of the planet Earth
because I'm still have a problem-- with some of the answers you gave me
For instance -- the bombardment from planets .-and so on-- which hit the earth //and explode
scientists is trying to explain their theories but they are inclusive, once again these are just theories
-okay no problem
problem still stands -- the amount of Water on the earth from other planets. only Speculate
And the bombardment of these planets// most will burn up before entering the earth
so this should destroy most life forms as we know or not known it -- and any water particles.
the scientists talk about how these planets bombarded the earth and a power.
power of the explosion and the dust clouds which possibly could or may -- killed the dinosaurs //
power of the explosion upon the earth.// devastating to life --
the amount of power planets-- bombardment would have //
would send the earth through space ????????????? ( this is possible)
scientists also said is was possibly to put the earth off its
axis because of the bombardment and explosion from the planet.
scientists--- speculate-- not sure
you say
then you try to tell me .--- that the book false
if that's the case were both on a sinking ship
locusts I've been looking at
http://
http://
http://
thank -s
I've been thinking about some of the answers to questions relating to life and the beginning of the planet Earth
because I'm still have a problem-- with some of the answers you gave me
For instance -- the bombardment from planets .-and so on-- which hit the earth //and explode
scientists is trying to explain their theories but they are inclusive, once again these are just theories
-okay no problem
problem still stands -- the amount of Water on the earth from other planets. only Speculate
And the bombardment of these planets// most will burn up before entering the earth
so this should destroy most life forms as we know or not known it -- and any water particles.
the scientists talk about how these planets bombarded the earth and a power.
power of the explosion and the dust clouds which possibly could or may -- killed the dinosaurs //
power of the explosion upon the earth.// devastating to life --
the amount of power planets-- bombardment would have //
would send the earth through space ????????????? ( this is possible)
scientists also said is was possibly to put the earth off its
axis because of the bombardment and explosion from the planet.
scientists--- speculate-- not sure
you say
then you try to tell me .--- that the book false
if that's the case were both on a sinking ship
locusts I've been looking at
http://
http://
http://
Latest Posts
ChatterBank1 min ago
Three Quarters Of Gps Want To Go On...
News6 mins ago
Crosswords9 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles12 mins ago
