2007-03-09 04:35:30 · 12 answers · asked by The Church Lady 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Church Lady, I got a half a of bottle of tequila, a bag of Fritos, a joint and thirty minutes
What say we spend a some time in "heaven"?
2007-03-09 04:40:42 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
HAHA...people are taking this seriously. Somebody actually said "Good point!"
I suppose I may as well go ahead and say that it's probably because the "bible" was complied from the written recensions of the oral legends of a tribe of nomadic savages, and that we might just as well take the "Arabian Nights" for a scientific or historical text.
If you want to interpret "Let there be light" as a poetic figuring of the Big Bang, whatever. Knock yourself out. I consider such speculation to be obvious self-delusion, but have fun with it.
2007-03-09 04:40:40 · answer #2 · answered by jonjon418 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If we start by making the assumption that all that has happened must be recorded in the Bible, we are operating on a false premise.
The existence of Scandinavia wasn't mentioned in the Bible, nor were the Aztec and Inca empires. We can't rely upon the Bible for accurate historical information.
2007-03-09 04:39:58 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Because the story of creation is a fallacy. Genesis has some of the silliest stories that are still believed by adults.
The Bible is, by and large, not a factual account of history.
2007-03-09 04:48:42 · answer #4 · answered by Anthony Stark 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
*palmface*
*sigh*
Because, even though the Bible is supposed to be inspired by God and written by man, the fact still remains that the Bible was written by man. There is no proof that man didn't just come up with this Bible concept to get his way. The Bible shouldn't be taken as fact because it was written by man ... supposedly inspired by God.
2007-03-09 04:50:52 · answer #5 · answered by Joa5 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The creation story was passed down orally for many years through tribal societies before it was written down. These people had little scientific knowledge. They made up stories that explained what they didn't understand and these stories reflected the intellect and knowledge of the times. Which creation story should we subscribe to in Genesis? There are actually two. I think the oral traditon split and when recording it they wrote up both.
2007-03-09 04:42:53 · answer #6 · answered by Zen Pirate 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I do not believe in a Big Bang; however the Big Bang theory and the creation in Genesis fits like a glove; check it out if you dare!
2007-03-09 04:41:49 · answer #7 · answered by gnostic 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I consider myself a loyal cosmopolitanist have read every issue and I have never seen anything bout the big bang theory unless you are referring to multiple orgasm and that ain't in my bible either
2007-03-09 04:45:00 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
The big bang sounds a lot like, "Let there be light" to me. Why do you think so many cosmologists are trying to rework the theory? (Stephen Hawking has been using imaginary numbers to change the mathematical image of the big bang so it is no longer conical with a definite beginning point)
2007-03-09 04:43:44 · answer #9 · answered by Christopher 2 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Actually, if you look closely, the energy and matter phases are described:
darkness was upon the face of the deep...
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light...
Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
That seems like classical cosmology to me.
2007-03-09 04:41:28 · answer #10 · answered by novangelis 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋