Do you believe that our universe was created in six days?
20 Feb 08
Hi sutanhartanto, It's easy to use the trick of symbolism to dismiss the literal intent of biblical stories. The same approach can be used to reconcile the story of Creation with the myth of Evolution, given that the sequence of events in both is roughly equivalent. I personally keep an open mind on the matter, which means that I don't profess any particular line of belief. I don't choose any view on the subject. What I will say, however, is what I know to be true - namely that much of the current body of human "science", especially what is taught in Western universities, is a load of self-justifying, self-perpetuating nonsense. As a small example, consider the Sun. Conventional "science" asserts that the Sun (and all stars) are big fluffy balls of gas. The truth is that the Sun (and presumably all stars) is solid - a very big, very black, very very solid ball. Try telling that to 99.999% of "scientists", and they'll take you outside and burn you at the stake. Which demonstrates that what most of us accept as "science" is actually just a pagan religion masquerading as science. God is God. All time and space, and everything beyond, is His creation and His to do with as He pleases. If He said that He made the world in 6 days, then I'm not going to contest it. I might not understand it, and I may not even be capable of comprehending how such a thing can be possible - but when it comes to deciding between human "science" and Divine Revelation, I'll never willingly default to the human view of things - especially when I already know that so much of human "science" is just self-serving nonsense.
20 Feb 08
Hi again, There's a good deal of info available now which demonstrates that the Sun's surface beneath it's glowing atmosphere is quite static and solid, complete with mountain ranges and rifts and valleys (the tiniest of which could easily swallow up the entire Earth). Courtesy in the main from NASA satellite imagery, which you can easily hunt down on the Internet. There's actually also a few good sites which go into the subject in some detail (which I don't have up my sleeve just now - displaced whilst reconfiguring PCs etc). But as you might guess, it's not getting any airplay. Too much invested in the mainstream view of things in all the Universities. As regards the subject of mythology, I'm happy to refer to the "Story of Evolution" if you like, but as I indicated before, I personally don't adhere to either side of that particular religious debate. It appears to me that both religions have equivalent bodies of evidence to support their views. That's a large part of what I can see as the problem with much of "science" today - the unquestioning belief of its practitioners in the approved tenets, which in any other context would clearly be acts of faith in the dogmatic doctrine of a religion. Do you recall what used to be the prevailing dogma surrounding the dinosaurs - that they were big, slow-witted, cold-blooded behemoths that couldn't even get walking until the Sun heated them up for a few hours? The people who challenged those (patently absurd) beliefs were treated terribly by the "scientific" community, until now some decades later our ideas about the dinosaurs probably comes closer to the reality. Evolution is another of those "scientific" dogmas that brands any "unbeliever" as a "Creationist", ie, the opposing religion. I don't choose to accept either of these points of view, because neither story has sufficient merit to convince me... nor should you or anyone else unless you believe that you have good reason to. It's up to you as to what you consider to be sufficiently good reasons to demand that you accept a particular story as being true. Here's another couple of spanners to throw in the works of mainstream "science" - first, pretty much all of present cosmological science has been built on the foundation of the Red Shift Theory (theory, not fact) which says that light from distant stars is shifted towards the red end of the spectrum owing to the Doppler Effect, which means that those stars are moving away from us. And no matter which direction we look, the stars are moving away from us - moreover, the further away they are, the faster they appear to be moving away from us (according to the Red Shift Theory). Which all leads us to the Big Bang Theory, wherein supposedly some time ago everything in the Universe was compressed into a teensy little point that somehow exploded into what we now see spread out before us today. But there's a problem - a teensy weensy problem, to be sure, but a significant problem, nonetheless... stars have been found with red shifts that place them behind galaxies which they are actually in front of... it doesn't work... and there are OTHER explanations for why the light from stars seems to be shifted to the red end of the spectrum, none of which requie al the stars in the universe to be speeding away from us, and which therefore also don't require a Big Bang... So what if there was NO Big Bang? That would be a disaster for academia, because just about everything to do with cosmological science (and all those many many billions of dollars of government grants, and all those esteemed centers of learning together with the numerous very lucrative faculty careers) has been built, layer upon layer upon layer, on that central uncompromising dogma of "The Big Bang". Let's be honest here, "The Big Bang" isn't something that's intuituve or that anyone in their right mind would naturally come to think or expect about the Universe. It's an article of religious faith taught by the temples of "science" - a mantra that's been repeated so widely and so often that now it's an unquestioned article of faith. And there's a reasonable chance, from what I've seen, that it's completely wrong. The second item that might interest inquisitive minds is the Martian landscape as presented by NASA's rovers, those two heroic robots trundling back and forth across the Martian surface for so man months (now quite a few years, in fact). Both these little machines have a color calibration chart affixed to their little metal butts, right next to their color video cameras, in order to assist with the proper adjustment of the colors in the video images transmitted back from their location. As clearly shown on a few web-sites, the images released by NASA which showed the red Martian landscape under a red Martian sky were actually distorted. When adjusted to bring their colors back to the correct range (as per the color calibration chart visible in each image) then the sky turned blue. Which means either that the little Martian Rovers aren't really on Mars, or there's something about Mars that we're not being told. One or the other. Which one, I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me if they were both trundling around the Nevada desert the whole time. Or Mars might have a much different atmosphere to what we're being told. I'm really not suspicious, or into conspiracy theories. But I do know that "science" as practiced in most nations of the world is a thoroughly human activity governed by incorrigible and very bureaucratic institutions, more often than not under the complicating influences of private and corporate vested interests. And humans, being a herding species, are collectively so thoroughly suggestible and so easily manipulated.
• United States
21 Feb 08
"the myth of Evolution" This is as goofy* a statement as "the myth of magnetism". I have a feeling it won't get any better. I like how you say this: "what most of us accept as "science" is actually just a pagan religion masquerading as science." And back it up with an unsupported assertion: "The truth is that the Sun (and presumably all stars) is solid - a very big, very black, very very solid ball." The truth? According to what? Where's your evidence? Clearly you have no idea what science is or how it's done. "Try telling that to 99.999% of "scientists", and they'll take you outside and burn you at the stake." No, they'll ask for evidence. When you inevitably go on a conspiracy theory rant instead of providing it (as you have done here), they will ignore you, and rightly so. "God is God. All time and space, and everything beyond, is His creation and His to do with as He pleases." Wow, what a scientific statement! Clearly, a barrage of unsupported assertions is how Real Science™ is done! ...yeah, now I'm sure you have no idea what "science" even means. "If He said that He made the world in 6 days, then I'm not going to contest it." Of course, you can't even prove that God exists, much less that he was any way involved in the writing of Genesis. All you have is the book's assertion of its own authority, and God-inspired status. And this is more convincing to you than the entire body of science, backed with evidence, that is successfully applied every single day by scientific communities all around the world? How much more obvious could your bias be? "when it comes to deciding between human "science" and Divine Revelation, I'll never willingly default to the human view of things" The funny thing is that you unwittingly already have--you've submitted yourself to a man-made religion (that makes no sense, for crying out loud, by the way). Proof of your brainwashing is evident in you seriously thinking that Genesis is a history manual of existence. According to Genesis, plants existed before the sun--yeeah, uh huh, okay. You go on thinking that. Any god who knew anything wouldn't do something that stupid. "I already know that so much of human "science" is just self-serving nonsense." You've already proven you don't even know what "science" even really means, so I don't think you're qualified to make a judgment like that. *Given the undeniable fact that modern vaccines (in fact, all of modern biology/medicine) are created through direct reliance of our knowledge of evolution, I'd like for you to explain how vaccines exist if evolution doesn't. It's like saying hydrogen is a myth while standing in a puddle of water (H2O). P.S. The sun is not gas; it is plasma.
• Puerto Rico
23 Feb 08
In Genesis, it's not God saying, "I created the world in six days" The writer who had a 24 hour concept of a day is the one who informs us that God created the world in six days. Let's say we both live in the U.S and I tell you that according to weatherman it's going to be only 32 degrees tomorrow in your city. There would be no reason for you to assume that I meant in degrees Celsius. Unless, I'm deliberately trying to confuse you, I'm going to take in to account that the you are going to understand 32 degrees as 32 Fahrenheit. Note that before 1958 the world was supposedly 3 billion years old. Not it's 4.5. Just give them about 50 more years and the number will probably double.
20 Feb 08
There is no possible way the Bible can be true. It is supposed to have been dreamed up thousands of years ago,by men who never went to school, long before there was any paper or other writing materials, so it was passed down from person to person from generation to generation, until someone went to school and learned to write. Then it was remembered by people who had heard it from their grandparents who were totally illiterate and had no idea what the Universe was, indeed they thought the earth was flat and you had to be careful if you went on a trip because you might fall off the edge.
20 Feb 08
The idea that the world is flat is actually a relatively new one. The Ancient Egyptians would have laughed at our Medieval friends for even considering the world might be flat. Any nation with a navy, merchant or offensive (so, that's every nation with a coast) knew the world was not flat, that it at least has some curvature to it. Watch a ship with a mast travel out to sea, watch the mast as it disappears over the horizon. It sinks; clear evidence that the world is curved. This is how the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians... and a plethora of other ancient peoples knew the world was not flat. Everything else you said, fine... but that the world is flat; Columbus was not the first (and he actually believed it was pear shaped *sigh*).
2 Mar 08
I think that it's necessary to distinguish between religious belief and "rational" belief. as far as religion goes, the ancient Egyptians certainly believed that the world was flat. at the same time, there where probably Egyptian thinkers who knew from observation, that the world was not flat. Greek scientists over 2000 years ago certainly knew that the world was round, but that knowledge was lost or ignored after the collapse of the classical civilisations and the rise of the suffocating hand of Christianity which thought that only the literal word of the bible was true and all else was heresy. Even as late as the 17th century the Christian church was trying to suppress scentific facts that dot not agree with there accepted dogma.
• United States
20 Feb 08
Well, I'm one of those folks that believes in G'd and evolution. I believe in the Big Bang Theory, but I believe that G'd started the Big Bang. G'd created all the Universe and let it develop to the point where Man was at a point where he could communicate with him. G'd did communicate with Man and made His covenant with him and it continues 'til today. If you take the Torah literally, then the earth is only 6000 years old. Tell me then, when did the dinosaurs walk the earth? What about all the ice ages that we can prove happened? 6000 years is too short a time for all of these things to have happened in. We know that the earth is much older than that. We must be realistic and use our common sense or G'd would not have given us a brain and intelligence. Shalom~Salaam~Peace
22 Feb 08
Adoniah Adoniah Adoniah, Ye of little faith! To God, anything is possible - even if it's beyond our paltry ability to grasp. I personally don't accept ANY position on these things, and no-one actually has to take a position if they don't want to. I'll dismiss certain scenarios from further consideration if the evidence gives me reason to - but nothing passed down either through the Bible or Tradition falls into that category. Here's a couple of thoughts to consider - and they're just thoughts, no-one has to pick them up or test them, but it might spark something for someone out there. What if all this "carbon dating" guff was a load of self-serving hogwash, and both it and all the related dating methods were rigged to give paleontologists the answers that they wanted? People have a funny way of doing that. Or what if the underlying assumptions upon which these dating methods are based are so off the mark that it's all up the creek? If all the dinosaurs and other critters were stomping around just a few thousand years ago, that wouldn't cause me any particular consternation. I'd be a bit disappointed in missing out on seeing them, but perhaps not so sad about having to dodge the Velociraptors on the way to school. Maybe Fred Flinstone's not such a fantasy. There are just too many things we don't know, and so much of what we think we know is built on a house of straw. Our centers of learning construct (fabricate) whatever history is required to satisfy our cultural preconceptions. BUT we have other sources of knowledge, other sources of info. Tradition is a good thing. Did you know that just about every indigenous culture throughout the world has legends of a great flood? Even the Koori tribes of Australia (where a giant frog named Frogzilla or something dropped his guts one day and flooded the entire landscape). (Don't even get me started on the Big Bang Theory - I'm a Class A Heretic on that subject.) So Tradition is great - word of mouth, eye-witness accounts passed down through generations, uncensored by organized interests. The written record is pretty useful too. You speak of the Torah - if it says 6,000 years, why argue with that? You can grow a lot of chickens in 6,000 years, and a lot of things can happen in that time. Not that it's necessarily so - but to dismiss the notion closes the door on a possible avenue to the Truth. I also reckon it's worthwhile consulting the Mystics on the subject, seeing as how the best of them have a window through the passing mists of time. It seems that before the Great Flood, the world was an entirely different place to what it is now - who knows what went on before that? Anyway, having an open mind really gives a lot of freedom to see things that other people might have closed their eyes and their minds to. It's always worth a try, but just be careful not to tell anyone, or there's a good chance they'll try to kill you (as herding species generally do).
• United States
20 Feb 08
the bible tells us that (2Pet.3:8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.So it may not be a litteral six days as we know it but could be as God knows it !
• United States
14 Mar 08
Brother Sutanhartanto (185) Althou i didn't take the time to read all the responces that you got, I as a sharer of the gospel will not bore you with the scriptures of a day as a thound yr's with the father. However i would encourage you to search out and find a book that's relatively new perhaps 3-4 yrs old called the fingerprint of God. I was amazed to learn of it a few years back, written by a former athiest and leading scientist of World renown, that is now a bornagain christian, and has caused a huge number of leading scientist from all around the world to become christians by his mere scientific prof that all matter was formed instantly. Again look for the book called either, (The) or just plain, Fingerprint of God. God bless you in your search for the truth, as I Believe that he will himself reveal himself to you.,
• United States
3 Mar 08
The word in Hebrew is YOM which means a 24 hour day. It is used consistently throughout the Old Testament. It is not symbolic. The only reason that some believe in long periods of time is because of the lie of evolutionary thought. But there is no conclusive evidence for evolution...merely speculation. I know this because I am a scientist.
26 Feb 08
I believe what the bible says,but i do not believe that the universe is created in 6 days.Remember that we are bounded by time,and God is boundless and infinite.So if he says 6 days,that maybe 6 million or 6 billion or 6 trillion.It depends on the computation of God,man's computation has limits and weakness,Gods computation is perfect,meaning without any small percent of error.
23 Feb 08
Religion and God are man made concepts. Religion is a philosophical blunder! Every time you counteract one of its philosophies they give new ones like 6 days. When someone said how could god create the whole universe in just six days, when according to science it took millions and billions of years. Then people(those who created religions) again gave a new theory that one day of God is equal to many thousands or millions of years.And this thing will go on until one of the conflicting parties(Truth Versus Myth) surrenders. Analyze things logically and rationally you will get your answers. There is a saying in our language "Bhainse ke aage been bajaana" which literally means Playing flute(or similar instrument) in front of buffaloes. It means no matter how much concrete evidence you give to dumb or mentally blind people they won't believe you! Its a human tendency to create fantasies and other fantasies related to those fantasies. The stories in religious scriptures are generally meant to imbibe moral values but some people take incidences in these books or scriptures as truth and start spreading myths. The use of six days is to simply to make you feel that God is powerful of all.
23 Feb 08
I believe in everything the bible says since all things are possible with God. The bible also says that 1 day is like a 1000 days and 1000 like 1 day, so to God there is no element of time, so six days can mean anything but the most important thing, GOD CREATED THE EARTH AND ALL THATS IN IT!
• United States
23 Feb 08
hmmm, i think there might be a form of trueth, but not days like we experiance it, some say that 1 cosmic day is like 1 thousand years for us, good thought to ponder on, is the bible trying to say 1 human day or a cosmic day either way if u do the math u'll come up with 2 differnt eqoitions
• United States
21 Feb 08
I don't think that it was a literal six days. This is how I personally reconcile science with my religious beliefs. And clearly God is not on the same time table or schedule that we as humans are. I can't argue bible translation or spout scripture, I admit that I'm not that well versed, but I do believe that the bible was written in terms that we as humans can identify with, i.e. days as a measure of time. That does not mean that everything in the Bible is literal. I think that a lot of times people take what the Bible says in a literal sense, with out thinking deeper about what the scriptures mean.