Yet another Muslim terrorist murders Americans

[sanjuro_ronin]

there are many versions of the big bang theory and not all fit in with genesis... especially when you are taking it from a many-worlders perspective... the closer we come to unification, the further we get from the singular bigbang genesis theory...

May I suggest:
www.biologos.org for some interesting reading.

[SoCo KungFu]

Our understandging of God is based only in PART on the bible, God's wonderous work of the universe is another part of that.
It is right that our understanding of God evolves as our understanding of the universe does to.

Except that Genesis is bollocks and there was no flood and a hundred other things that just don't fit. If part of the understanding of a god (any god) is in the wondrous work of the universe, and every discovery we make is in exclusion of a god (any god), then what's the point of he/she/it again? Why not just cut out the middle man that really isn't doing anything (except keeping those who may otherwise be good people in an emotional/mental stranglehold)?

[Drake]

I think you missed the point, Augustine was NOT interpreting Genesis literally, even 1700 years ago.
The big bang relates that the universe HAD a beginning, it is expanding and all that is expanding must have had a beginning.
There was no space or time BEFORE there was space and time.
There are theories that the universe always was or there are multiple universese in different dimensions, but there is no evidence, much less proof of that.
Though one can argue that if there are mulitple dimensions and multiple universe that "heaven and God" can exist in one of those.
I mean, if we are just speculating for speculation sake with no evidence needed.

Quantum physics, like Einstien postulated, views time as relevant to context.
There is no reason to assume time was ever present before the universe began NOR to assume time works the same way or even exists in other dimensions.

That still breaks down to a lot of assumptions as to what Augustine is referring to. Again, fitting his interpretations to match modern science.

First, nobody knows if there was a time in which there was no time (which makes no **** sense, FYI), and nobody is saying the big bang was THE beginning. You are taking what we know NOW and assuming that is what Augustine is referring to. So, when we find out what came before the BB, then that will be templated to Augustine as well?

There isn't anything suggesting time ever stopped or did not exist.

[sanjuro_ronin]

That still breaks down to a lot of assumptions as to what Augustine is referring to. Again, fitting his interpretations to match modern science.

First, nobody knows if there was a time in which there was no time (which makes no **** sense, FYI), and nobody is saying the big bang was THE beginning. You are taking what we know NOW and assuming that is what Augustine is referring to. So, when we find out what came before the BB, then that will be templated to Augustine as well?

There isn't anything suggesting time ever stopped or did not exist.

Augustine said what he said, it's no assumption to say he said that, he said it and wrote it down.
The fact that scientific theory came to "agree" with him centuries later is no biggie.
It could have been an absolute fluke on his part.
Augustine warned not to take Genesis literally because nature could prove our interpretation wrong and then he interpreted gensis HIS way, which buy coincendence has come to be the scientific view of many, the POINT was that Augustine warned NOT to interepret ( or to be cautiosu) in interpreting stories liek Genesis in a literal and concrete fashion.

The Big bang was NOT the beginning, no you are right, it was the beginning of the universal expansion yes, but we don't know what was there already, IF anything was there at all.
Not sure why you have issues in believing that time as we know it is relevant to our reality but hey, its all good.
We are just having good fun here, no biggie.

[Drake]

Nothing fell into agreement with anything. It was an ambiguous statement made by him that could easily apply to virtually anything. It's like hearing someone defend Nostradamus and TV psychics.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Except that Genesis is bollocks and there was no flood and a hundred other things that just don't fit. If part of the understanding of a god (any god) is in the wondrous work of the universe, and every discovery we make is in exclusion of a god (any god), then what's the point of he/she/it again? Why not just cut out the middle man that really isn't doing anything (except keeping those who may otherwise be good people in an emotional/mental stranglehold)?

Actually, Genesis is a compilation of at least 2 creation stories and yes, there was a flood, not a global one of course, but there was a huge flood in the mesopetamian area.
Genesis is a story of creation, not HOW it was created, not by what process, it is not and was never a science book, it is a creation story ( 2 stories at least, put into one general story).
Ancient man writing for ancient man wrote how ancient man wrote, by stories.
Regardless of inspiration or not, ancient man wrote in that historical genre.

[Drake]

Since it's all in good fun... it reminds me of THIS!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JaRObcLsds

[Drake]

Actually, Genesis is a compilation of at least 2 creation stories and yes, there was a flood, not a global one of course, but there was a huge flood in the mesopetamian area.
Genesis is a story of creation, not HOW it was created, not by what process, it is not and was never a science book, it is a creation story ( 2 stories at least, put into one general story).
Ancient man writing for ancient man wrote how ancient man wrote, by stories.
Regardless of inspiration or not, ancient man wrote in that historical genre.

Did the bible say it was global?

And didn't Genesis provide a very specific timeline? Or are we going to keep scooting that timeline out as we find out the universe is older than we thought?

[sanjuro_ronin]

Did the bible say it was global?

And didn't Genesis provide a very specific timeline? Or are we going to keep scooting that timeline out as we find out the universe is older than we thought?

The writers of Gensis ( the bible doesn't say ANYTHING at all, its a book ) said the "all the land/world was covered".
Just as Rome and Alexander conquered all the world too, it was ancient writing by ancient writers.
The timeline of Genesis is from Adam, not from the beginning of the world.
Of course Adam, which means Man, is in of himself and whole new story, LOL !

[Lucas]

i know in the analects of confucious there is reference to the great deluge, does this coorespond chronologically?

[Drake]

The writers of Gensis ( the bible doesn't say ANYTHING at all, its a book ) said the "all the land/world was covered".
Just as Rome and Alexander conquered all the world too, it was ancient writing by ancient writers.
The timeline of Genesis is from Adam, not from the beginning of the world.
Of course Adam, which means Man, is in of himself and whole new story, LOL !

So you are making the assumption that it was local, as modern science doesn't support a global flood? All the land/world seems pretty specific.

[Drake]

i know in the anelects of confucious there is reference to the great deluge, does this coorespond chronologically?

No. Floods happen. Often. And virtually everywhere.

[sanjuro_ronin]

So you are making the assumption that it was local, as modern science doesn't support a global flood? All the land/world seems pretty specific.

Saying the Rome ruled the world seems pretty specific too, did they? did the writers mean that?
Nope.
Whenever we try to interpret ancient text we need to see WHo wrote it, to WHOM and with what purpose.
Genesis and its stories,like the flood that is recounted in the Giligimesh epic, were written by ancient man, putting down on "paper" ancient oral accounts passed on by the generations.
It is not a "science" book and was written in the genre of its time.

[sanjuro_ronin]

i know in the analects of confucious there is reference to the great deluge, does this coorespond chronologically?

Not really, like Drake said, floods happen all the time, some are HUGE and others just big enough to get a mention in the books.
Ancient man wasn't that worried about recording precise events as much as impressions about the event, it was far more interesting that way.

[ShaolinDan]

Saying the Rome ruled the world seems pretty specific too, did they? did the writers mean that?
Nope.
Whenever we try to interpret ancient text we need to see WHo wrote it, to WHOM and with what purpose.
Genesis and its stories,like the flood that is recounted in the Giligimesh epic, were written by ancient man, putting down on "paper" ancient oral accounts passed on by the generations.
It is not a "science" book and was written in the genre of its time.

Good stuff, Sanjuro. I'm impressed.