Biblical inerrancy

[+Desertrat56]

2 minutes ago, razman said:

Why would anyone think it means we were made to look like God? If God was a creator , perhaps being made in his image means it makes us creators . or maybe we were made to think like God. 

Or some other imagining God had.   

[+razman]

Just now, Desertrat56 said:

Or some other imagining God had.   

Yea it could be any number of things. IMHO  lot of the religions took these kinds of things too literally.

[cormac mac airt]

We could just as well have been made to be sentient, as any other reasoning. 

cormac 

[+Desertrat56]

36 minutes ago, Guyver said:

This allows for natural evolution to occur, and some people consider the creation of humans by God as something called “Special Creation.”  This allows for the belief that people are different from animals and intentionally created in the image of God, which as far as I can tell from biblical studies means, we were made to look like God does. FWIW.

I don't see how that making humans specially created by god but the animals weren't makes any sense at all.   So some think that "Special Creation" means some deity created humans and plopped them down on a planet that was already populated with animals and other Homo erectus types (people)?   Do they believe that Neanderthals and Denisovians were not created by thier god?

Edited September 7, 2022 by Desertrat56

[+Hammerclaw]

All self-aware creatures are "sentient". Humanity's "something extra" is EGO. 

[+Desertrat56]

1 minute ago, Hammerclaw said:

All self-aware creatures are "sentient". Humanity's "something extra" is EGO. 

Well, if you include Neanderthals and Denosovians in that "humanity" then maybe I agree somewhat.  

[+Hammerclaw]

1 minute ago, Desertrat56 said:

Well, if you include Neanderthals and Denosovians in that "humanity" then maybe I agree somewhat.  

As far as I'm concerned, we've been human for millions of years, since we first stood upright, shed most of our fur, began to sweat, copiously, enabling us to run down prey, in the heat of day, not able to cool their bodies that way. Bipedalism, hairlessness and language were simultaneous and complimentarily evolved traits.

[+Desertrat56]

5 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

As far as I'm concerned, we've been human for millions of years, since we first stood upright, shed most of our fur, began to sweat, copiously, enabling us to run down prey, in the heat of day, not able to cool their bodies that way. Bipedalism, hairlessness and language were simultaneous and complimentarily evolved traits.

I agree that we have been human for millions of years, but I am unsure of the bipedalism, hairlessness and language as simultaneous evolved traits, I suspect Neanderthals had more intellignece, but something that made them less able to survive their hairless (more violent?) cousins.

[+Hammerclaw]

2 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

I agree that we have been human for millions of years, but I am unsure of the bipedalism, hairlessness and language as simultaneous evolved traits, I suspect Neanderthals had more intellignece, but something that made them less able to survive their hairless (more violent?) cousins.

No, their lifestyle living in small family groups, overall, comparatively small population and perhaps susceptibility to introduced diseases caused their population to be swamped and absorbed into the collective body of humanity. As a rule, humans aren't inclined to breed with inferior, non-talking lifeforms. 

[cormac mac airt]

50 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

I agree that we have been human for millions of years, but I am unsure of the bipedalism, hairlessness and language as simultaneous evolved traits, I suspect Neanderthals had more intellignece, but something that made them less able to survive their hairless (more violent?) cousins.

I would question bipedalism, hairlessness and language as simultaneous as well but it probably should be pointed out that Neanderthals were genetically in decline well before their genetics introgressed with ours. 
 

cormac

[+joc]

36 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

I would question bipedalism, hairlessness and language as simultaneous as well but it probably should be pointed out that Neanderthals were genetically in decline well before their genetics introgressed with ours. 
 

cormac

I was actually thanking you for your 'signature' which I had somehow never seen before!  

[Guyver]

5 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

I don't see how that making humans specially created by god but the animals weren't makes any sense at all.   So some think that "Special Creation" means some deity created humans and plopped them down on a planet that was already populated with animals and other Homo erectus types (people)?   Do they believe that Neanderthals and Denisovians were not created by thier god?

That’s a tough one.  You can get different answers from different people.  It’s like the dinosaurs, how could the God who made this world be not the same God who made the world the dinosaurs inhabited?  One answer that has been offered by some, like Dake, believe in a thing called the “Pre-Adamic World.” Also known as Pre-Adamic Earth. They believe a world existed long before Adam was created, and all them had already died out the way science believes, or that they all perished in the Great Flood.  Some also believe that perhaps it was the devil who did it in some sort of battle with God.  Some extreme believers consider all the facts of science a “thing of the devil” and the devil is the liar, so they don’t pay much attention to it.

[Guyver]

5 hours ago, razman said:

Why would anyone think it means we were made to look like God? If God was a creator , perhaps being made in his image means it makes us creators . or maybe we were made to think like God. 

I would think that based upon my exhaustive study of the Bible.  For example, in The Genesis Creation Story, the Bible claims that man (and women) are made in Gods image. 
 

26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over [g]all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that [h]moves on the earth.”

This belief is restated in the New Testament.  Now, listen to what Jesus demonstrates about the word image, in this passage from the Gospel of Mark. 
 

So they brought it. And He said to them, “Whose image and inscription is this?” They said to Him, “Caesar’s.”
 

Jesus goes on to say give Cesar that which belongs to him, and give to God…you know.  The point is that by indicating that the image - the appearance of the persons face on a coin…demonstrates his appearance, to be made in Gods image would mean that be look like him by logical extension.  
 

Consider Genesis 5:3 “ And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth.”

Ever hear the term “chip off the old block, or spittin image?” It refers to how it is common for male children to grow up looking just like their fathers.  I think that is what the last passage I posted is saying.  In any event, it confirms my assertion that image means likeness or resemblance.

[+Desertrat56]

9 hours ago, Guyver said:

That’s a tough one.  You can get different answers from different people.  It’s like the dinosaurs, how could the God who made this world be not the same God who made the world the dinosaurs inhabited?  One answer that has been offered by some, like Dake, believe in a thing called the “Pre-Adamic World.” Also known as Pre-Adamic Earth. They believe a world existed long before Adam was created, and all them had already died out the way science believes, or that they all perished in the Great Flood.  Some also believe that perhaps it was the devil who did it in some sort of battle with God.  Some extreme believers consider all the facts of science a “thing of the devil” and the devil is the liar, so they don’t pay much attention to it.

Right, because most of it is based on hope, desire and fear, not rational thought.    No one person has the same ideas or thoughts, perceptions, understanding as any other person.

Yes, rational thought could include the speculation that there is a creator of some sort, but there is no physical evidence that humans are special to any creator or that any creator is involved personally in our lives.   We are more than the sum of our physical parts and our mind is strong enough to see personal patterns in our lives but taking them and insisting that those patterns fit everyone else is just wishful thinking or an attempt to control more than anyone should or is able.  In the state we are in now, mentally and physically, science is the only way anyone can prove anything to the species, and it is still lacking because of certain mindsets.   If we ever get out of the mindset of everything being physical, including our thoughts, then we may be able to figure out how the universe was created or whether we are just a simulation in a computer or not.   I don't ascribe to the simulation theory, has too many holes in it, but I could be wrong because like every other human on this planet I don't know much, barely anything, really.

Edited September 8, 2022 by Desertrat56

[+Hammerclaw]

Jesus was a great teacher who was arrested by the Romans for disturbing the peace (a capital offense, they really hated that) and executed. Everything subsequent to that was word-of-mouth story re-telling, embellishment, hyperbole, fabrication, etcetera, after a hundred years creating a mythos around a human man, transforming him into a demigod who rose from the dead. That's a secular explanation all unbelievers and apostates may subscribe to without qualm. There's no point in endless debates about the Bible and what amounts to nothing more than--from that perspective--Judeo-Christian fairytales. Be at peace with yourselves and move on.  

[+Hammerclaw]

16 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

I would question bipedalism, hairlessness and language as simultaneous as well but it probably should be pointed out that Neanderthals were genetically in decline well before their genetics introgressed with ours. 
 

cormac

If there was an evolutionary advantage to bipedalism only, we wouldn't be the only bipedal primate. To cool the body by sweating is facilitated by loss of fur as no other primate with fur cools it's body by profuse sweating. Bipedalism enhances this ability and enables us to both free our hands to carry tools as well as cool our bodies and move for hours in the heat of the sun. Our ancestors were persistence hunters on the African Savannah, we didn't run our prey down, they were faster. We followed them, persistently, never allowing them to rest, until they succumbed to the heat, enabling us to move in for the kill. Modern day hunter-gatherers still use this technique. There was no genetic decline in Neanderthals albeit they were prone to inbreeding.

[+Hammerclaw]

18 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

Or some other imagining God had.   

Perhaps it's merely that man creates his gods in his own image, the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals, after all--so of course the gods must look like us. Why even Jesus took this form. Seems to me more arrogance and hubris than anything else. Yet, one must tread softly, as they who question the beliefs of others are often the most conflicted of souls, themselves.

[cormac mac airt]

2 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

If there was an evolutionary advantage to bipedalism only, we wouldn't be the only bipedal primate. To cool the body by sweating is facilitated by loss of fur as no other primate with fur cools it's body by profuse sweating. Bipedalism enhances this ability and enables us to both free our hands to carry tools as well as cool our bodies and move for hours in the heat of the sun. Our ancestors were persistence hunters on the African Savannah, we didn't run our prey down, they were faster. We followed them, persistently, never allowing them to rest, until they succumbed to the heat, enabling us to move in for the kill. Modern day hunter-gatherers still use this technique. There was no genetic decline in Neanderthals albeit they were prone to inbreeding.

I would call a population bottleneck a genetic decline. 
 

Quote

By analyzing patterns of divergence between distinct Neanderthal haplotypes, Prüfer et al. inferred that Neanderthals experienced a strong population bottleneck, lasting ∼10 times longer than the out-of-Africa bottleneck (Gutenkunst et al. 2009; Gravel et al. 2011; Harris and Nielsen 2013; Prüfer et al. 2014).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4896200/#:~:text=By analyzing patterns of divergence,Nielsen 2013%3B Prüfer et al.

Also bipedalism is evidenced in Australopithicines circa 4+ million years BP, loss of most body hair circa 2 Mya and the oldest evidence of a human (Neanderthal) hyoid bone, used for language, dating circa 60,000 BP so I wouldn’t exactly call them “simultaneous”.

cormac

[+Hammerclaw]

5 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

I would call a population bottleneck a genetic decline. 
 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4896200/#:~:text=By analyzing patterns of divergence,Nielsen 2013%3B Prüfer et al.

Also bipedalism is evidenced in Australopithicines circa 4+ million years BP, loss of most body hair circa 2 Mya and the oldest evidence of a human (Neanderthal) hyoid bone, used for language, dating circa 60,000 BP so I wouldn’t exactly call them “simultaneous”.

cormac

I would, as true bipedalism and hyoid bones don't appear overnight. Australopithecines were semi arboreal. 

[+joc]

just saying...if God created everything that is...then he also created Trillions of Galaxies...and yet the stars are more or less an afterthought in the Genesis story.

[larryp]

On 8/18/2022 at 3:09 PM, jmccr8 said:

Hi Larry

They don’t describe the same place either got it. It wasn’t translated into hell, hell is a place known to describe a place in another religion and culture . . ."

YHWH

But they all call themselves Christians, meaning they are supposed to describe the same place. Got it?

[jmccr8]

4 minutes ago, larryp said:

YHWH

But they all call themselves Christians, meaning they are supposed to describe the same place. Got it?

Hi Larry

how those places were described create images unique to the culture that it is relevant to. Not likely folk lore disappeared when Christianity showed up and many of those stories described something other than what the bible teaches. Not sure if you can understand not everyone that claims to be Christian believes the same thing about what hell is.

[larryp]

1 hour ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Larry

how those places were described create images unique to the culture that it is relevant to. 

YHWH

Both cultures are based on the same idea, Christianity, so they are describing the same place and "image" in the Scriptures, jmccr. The truth is, the Romans were disgusted with anything Jewish, so they replaced their culture with idol worship of the Romans. Allow the Creed of Constantine to break it down for you. The text is right above you.

[jmccr8]

7 hours ago, larryp said:

YHWH

Both cultures are based on the same idea, Christianity, so they are describing the same place and "image" in the Scriptures, jmccr. The truth is, the Romans were disgusted with anything Jewish, so they replaced their culture with idol worship of the Romans. Allow the Creed of Constantine to break it down for you. The text is right above you.

Hi Larry

Just a couple of points

a. I am not a Christian

b. Cultures influence social norms and as you can see there are Christians that live in every country in the world each with their own social norms. Christianity for the first several hundreds of years incorporated pagan gods and customs into Christianity and the saints(gods) existed in those regional areas and were not preach about or prayed to in other cultures till much later in history. 

[cormac mac airt]

14 hours ago, larryp said:

YHWH

Both cultures are based on the same idea, Christianity, so they are describing the same place and "image" in the Scriptures, jmccr. The truth is, the Romans were disgusted with anything Jewish, so they replaced their culture with idol worship of the Romans. Allow the Creed of Constantine to break it down for you. The text is right above you.

No, they’re really not. Jewish Sheol IS NOT the same thing as Gehenna, neither of which are the same thing as Hades and further none of the above are the same as the Christian Hell. They are, at best, approximate  ideas from multiple unrelated cultures. 
 

cormac