Project BlueBeam

[Monkey Man]

That's one of the most-classic, debunked, go-to arguments for those who haven't deep-dived out there bro'.

What makes more sense to you? Plants, then the sun a day later, as it literally says, or millions of years or whatever (the gap theory), based on a later verse that's also misinterpreted? Basic hermeneutics dictates that if a parameter's not predefined, a document is to be taken at its word, so there's that too.

There's plenty more, but I'm not gonna argue with you bro'. Believe what you want to believe. I simply responded to your assertion that the two verses didn't make sense when read in-sequence when in fact they absolutely do.

 

[TheBiggestJerk]

That's one of the most-classic, debunked, go-to arguments for those who haven't deep-dived out there bro'.

What makes more sense to you? Plants, then the sun a day later, as it literally says, or millions of years or whatever (the gap theory), based on a later verse that's also misinterpreted? Basic hermeneutics dictates that if a parameter's not predefined, a document is to be taken at its word, so there's that too.

There's plenty more, but I'm not gonna argue with you bro'. Believe what you want to believe. I simply responded to your assertion that the two verses didn't make sense when read in-sequence when in fact they absolutely do.

It is defined, just not until later in the canon. And debunked by who? It’s ALL open to interpretation. Nobody’s is any better than anyone else’s. It’s either ALL true or ALL false. Nobody knows. And the first chapter - of crystal clarity and tortuous writing conveys a human ideas and authorship, ergo the fairytale that it’s more likely.


That’s my favorite non answer response “There's plenty more, but I'm not gonna argue with you bro”… Sounds like Von.
If you didn’t want to argue you should’ve chimed in. Saying I’m not gonna argue after you started arguing is like trying to unring a bell.

 

[Bad Brain]

It’s either ALL true or ALL false.

Why's that?

 

[Monkey Man]

I have better answers than you no doubt think bro'.

Because I don't want to argue doesn't mean I don't know what I'm on about, so yeah, not gonna get baited into debating the well-worn paths I investigated and argued countless times in the past. I'm over that shit. If I put forward a tidbit I know to be true and the response isn't, "OK, I hadn't considered that", then I'm done. At the very least I might've planted a seed and that's good-enough for me.

That's why you may have noticed that I only very-occasionally throw a snippet of my perspective into these debates in OTC, so it's absolutely nothing against you bro'; we're cool man.

 

[TheBiggestJerk]

Why's that?

Occams Razor.

 

[VonBonfire]

It says the sun was made just 1 day afterwards.

The jerk is correct, the sun was created on the 4th day. But Christ is the light, and is foremost. He is begotten, not created in verse 2. The sun is not the source of life, Christ is.

John 1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

"

 

[japetus]

 

[Bad Brain]

I have better answers than you no doubt think bro'.

Because I don't want to argue doesn't mean I don't know what I'm on about, so yeah, not gonna get baited into debating the well-worn paths I investigated and argued countless times in the past. I'm over that shit. If I put forward a tidbit I know to be true and the response isn't, "OK, I hadn't considered that", then I'm done. At the very least I might've planted a seed and that's good-enough for me.

That's why you may have noticed that I only very-occasionally throw a snippet of my perspective into these debates in OTC, so it's absolutely nothing against you bro'; we're cool man.

 

[Monkey Man]

The jerk is correct, the sun was created on the 4th day. But Christ is the light, and is foremost. He is begotten, not created in verse 2. The sun is not the source of life, Christ is.

John 1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

"

I know what you believe bro' and I don't disagree with it; how could one?

This particular argument has nothing to do with that 'though - a literal day of darkness means nothing to a plant. Nothing.

So yeah, viewed as a purely-scientific sequence of events, there's no rational argument against this day without sunlight.

 

[VonBonfire]

Why's that?

He's right. It's either all truth or it's all a lie. He chooses to believe it's a lie, I choose to believe it is truth. He chooses based on human logic and reason, which are subject to fault, I choose based on faith. Believing in things I cannot always comprehend with human logic and reason. The foundation of orthodoxy is love. No other religion claims that. I trust that love will win, based on faith in love, so I can trust the book and the teachings orthodoxy has preserved since the time it was written.

 

[TheBiggestJerk]

I know what you believe bro' and I don't disagree with it; how could one?

This particular argument has nothing to do with that 'though - a literal day of darkness means nothing to a plant. Nothing.

So yeah, viewed as a purely-scientific sequence of events, there's no rational argument against this day without sunlight.

So that implies that mankind and the earth have only existed ~6000 years. Science disproves that! The weathering on the sphinx is said to be older than >20ky

 

[Bad Brain]

It's either all truth or it's all a lie.

I don't see why it has to be one or the other. There can be truth in the Bible and also untruth. It only has to be one or another if you look at the collection of books as a unified hole. But even then it is still possible that it contains things that are true and things that are untrue. ?‍

 

[Monkey Man]

So that implies that mankind and the earth have only existed ~6000 years. Science disproves that!

There's more evidence for a young earth than you could poke a stick at bro'.

Old earth? Not so much. Very little in fact 'cause the arguments only fall into a few flawed categories.

Again, I stand at the precipice of debating a subject I can bang on about for many hours without repeating myself. I happened to spend 20 years investigating it. I know all the arguments against it. Same deal. Not gonna bite.

"Science disproves that!". I dare you to look into it in-depth from "the other side" brother. What've you got to lose?

 

[VonBonfire]

I don't see why it has to be one or the other. There can be truth in the Bible and also untruth. It only has to be one or another if you look at the collection of books as a unified hole. But even then it is still possible that it contains things that are true and things that are untrue. ?‍

I can only see it in black and white. If the summation of the bible is Christ, then there can't be any untruth in the pages. One thing I've found in my journey to orthodoxy is that it's very protestant and western to try and harmonize science, archaeology, and ancient history with the bible. And that's what people are constantly trying to do in the west, because western protestantism is very cerebral i.e head knowledge. They want to confirm or in the case of the secular atheist tear down beliefs based on those outward, worldly things.

For myself I've found now that I am actually trying to walk the faith, not "logic" the faith that it's mostly noise that should be tuned out.. People aren't converted by head knowledge and logic and "gotcha" logic/science proofs, they are converted by acts of love. Saying it's only "partly true" is the same thing as throwing the whole thing out in my view.

 

[Monkey Man]

Actually bro', many are converted by facts.

Jesus himself used design (the design of what one sees around one's self) as a tool in, IIRC, the sermon on the mount.

No matter either way 'cause the Bible asks us to question and investigate it, like the Bereans.

"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work".

 

[Monkey Man]

I could add that many a scientist has converted following being blown-away by design the deeper he / she delved.

 

[VonBonfire]

Actually bro', many are converted by facts.

A faith based on facts isn't faith. It might cause that person to look deeper into the matter but I don't believe there is true inward conversion based on conviction in worldly facts. That's seed sown in stony ground. Sprouts quickly but withers soon after. There has to be more than that.

 

[japetus]

I could add that many a scientist has converted following being blown-away by design the deeper he / she delved.

Shant worry, when we are on the track

 

[Bad Brain]

I can only see it in black and white. If the summation of the bible is Christ, then there can't be any untruth in the pages

Okay, from that perspective I understand what you mean ?

 

[VonBonfire]

I could add that many a scientist has converted following being blown-away by design the deeper he / she delved.

That's conversion to belief in intelligent design, not really a conversion to "The Way". I would not guess many people science researching say "well this proves it, I'm off to divine liturgy for the mystical supper". There are a few more steps involved to true conversion.