Well,.....let's see. If time began as a consequence of the big bang,...it would seem to me that the age of the universe depends on where one might be in the universe. At the outer edge of the expansion it's somewhere around 1/10th of a second old. Outside of the edge of the expansion, it hasn't happened yet.
There is no "outer edge" or "outside" of the universe. Everything is inside it.
Upon what do you base this opinion? It sure does not come from science. Science is the result of observation.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
That's just one of the contradictions. Another being that Yahweh was a god of war, then a God of Love.
Not so. No contradiction here at all.
A man who loved his family.... provided for them, taught them and nurtured them could be seen as a man of love.
That same man could act and be seen as a man of war if someone was harming his family. So, he is both a man of love and a man of war.
Simple, yet you cannot see that in a God context.
All humans are supposed to be 'Gods children' - human parents do not kill their wayward children unless they themselves are killers. Plus you ignore verses which say God is good to all; ''But I tell you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you''
You can't have it both ways. Cherry picking does not resolve the contraction.
You are showing your ignorance of God's Word and using a mistake often used. God's Word tells us there are children of God and children of Satan.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
The story of Adam and Eve and the fall makes very little sense, except as a bronze age narrative to explain why the world is the way it is, the existence of hardship and suffering. A story borrowed from older cultures and adapted to suit the cultural and religious needs of the tribe of Israel.
What culture would predate the first man and woman? You choose to believe fairytales instead of sober history.
The point was that the Adam and Eve story was borrowed and adapted from older cultures, not that there was an actual Adam and Eve and Garden of Eden.
''Biblical myths are found mainly in the first 11 chapters of Genesis, the first book of the Bible. They are concerned with the creation of the world and the first man and woman, the origin of the current human condition, the primeval Deluge, the distribution of peoples, and the variation of languages. The basic stories are derived from the popular lore of the ancient Middle East; parallels can be found in the extant literature of the peoples of the area. The Mesopotamians, for instance, also knew of an earthly paradise such as Eden, and the figure of the cherubim....''
You accept what others tell you or from reading yourself about what is not true because you don't want The Bible to be true. You can't help yourself from doing it.
I've seen this statement made several times on various religious threads here "you don't want the Bible to be true", and it puzzles me a bit. Have you read the Book of Mormon? The Koran? The Vedas? Did you want them to be true? If you read any of them and didn't believe them, could you not also be accused of not wanting to believe them? In my opinion, someone reading the Bible or any book claiming truth for that matter, should not go in wanting to believe or disbelieve, but to be as unbiased as possible.
Interesting subject...................However imo, no scientist, astrophysicist or astronomer can accurately determine the age of the universe. And even if they could by whatever process, ie formula, theory or by whatever. then their findings would need further verification and scrutiny, which that process in and of itself would be inconclusive.
Several years ago two astronomy geeks, one from Harvard and one from Yale, estimated the universe to contain some 300 billion-trillion stars based on mapping and other criteria. In dealing with the universe such as age, distances, quantities and such, estimates can be the only guide. Earthly science by man cannot offer absolutes in certain categories where the universe is concerned..
An interesting #,,,,,,, 300 billion-trillion.......Take an area the size of the continental US (lower 48 states); about 3,119,500 square miles.........The next time you happen to be at your kitchen or bathroom sink, slow your flow down to a drip, drip, drip, drip..........300 billion-trillion individual droplets of tap water would fill an area the size of the lower 48 states,,,,,,approx 6,000 feet deep.........................
The point was that the Adam and Eve story was borrowed and adapted from older cultures, not that there was an actual Adam and Eve and Garden of Eden.
''Biblical myths are found mainly in the first 11 chapters of Genesis, the first book of the Bible. They are concerned with the creation of the world and the first man and woman, the origin of the current human condition, the primeval Deluge, the distribution of peoples, and the variation of languages. The basic stories are derived from the popular lore of the ancient Middle East; parallels can be found in the extant literature of the peoples of the area. The Mesopotamians, for instance, also knew of an earthly paradise such as Eden, and the figure of the cherubim....''
You accept what others tell you or from reading yourself about what is not true because you don't want The Bible to be true. You can't help yourself from doing it.[/quote]
I've seen this statement made several times on various religious threads here "you don't want the Bible to be true", and it puzzles me a bit. Have you read the Book of Mormon? The Koran? The Vedas? Did you want them to be true? If you read any of them and didn't believe them, could you not also be accused of not wanting to believe them? In my opinion, someone reading the Bible or any book claiming truth for that matter, should not go in wanting to believe or disbelieve, but to be as unbiased as possible.[/quote]
No on is unbiased. Before I became a Christian at age thirty, read the Bible and didn't believe it. I also read the Book of Mormon and thought it was worse. Never read the Koran. I heard in a lecture it is 28% lacuna so it has no validity to me. I never heard of the Vedas.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
Agreed, its difficult to be unbiased, and most people probably will be one way or another. Still, it would be best to be as unbiased as possible going in, which is why the statement "you don't want to believe" doesn't really make sense to me as a criticism, because there is no reason one should want to believe.
Well,.....let's see. If time began as a consequence of the big bang,...it would seem to me that the age of the universe depends on where one might be in the universe. At the outer edge of the expansion it's somewhere around 1/10th of a second old. Outside of the edge of the expansion, it hasn't happened yet.
There is no "outer edge" or "outside" of the universe. Everything is inside it.
Upon what do you base this opinion? It sure does not come from science. Science is the result of observation.
It's part of the Big Bang Theory and was observed by Penzias in 1964. He won the Nobel Prize for that.
So it "comes from science."
Don't blame me. I voted for Trump.
Democrats would burn this country to the ground, if they could rule over the ashes.
Well,.....let's see. If time began as a consequence of the big bang,...it would seem to me that the age of the universe depends on where one might be in the universe. At the outer edge of the expansion it's somewhere around 1/10th of a second old. Outside of the edge of the expansion, it hasn't happened yet.
There is no "outer edge" or "outside" of the universe. Everything is inside it.
And it's not expanding at the edges. All of the space of the universe is expanding.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
That's just one of the contradictions. Another being that Yahweh was a god of war, then a God of Love.
Not so. No contradiction here at all.
A man who loved his family.... provided for them, taught them and nurtured them could be seen as a man of love.
That same man could act and be seen as a man of war if someone was harming his family. So, he is both a man of love and a man of war.
Simple, yet you cannot see that in a God context.
All humans are supposed to be 'Gods children' - human parents do not kill their wayward children unless they themselves are killers. Plus you ignore verses which say God is good to all; ''But I tell you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you''
You can't have it both ways. Cherry picking does not resolve the contraction.
Nope, you’re wrong .......again.
You don’t know or understand God’s Word. You set up this notional idea that “All humans are supposed to be ‘God’s children’....”.... then knock it down. How did you come to this....supposition....?
Jesus clearly teaches otherwise and no, there is no biblical contradiction. These contradictions you “see” result from your own lack of understanding.
Nope, not ignoring verses at all.... you clearly do not understand context..... for example... to whom is Jesus speaking in the verse reference you mentioned? It makes a difference.... but, you do not see and the result is just more meaningless squawking.
The issue is not "Gods word" which is an unproven claim, but basic logic. It is logic that determines the contradiction. The contradiction is there whether you want to acknowledge it or not.
