If atheists get accused of taking verses out of context, how do we know fundamentalists making those accusations aren’t doing the same as well?

[Lapidem]

Appeal to Ignorance. More denial. We didn't get to the moon without command of nature.

I can see you are willfully ignorant, not merely not having eyes to see. And you change the goal posts at whim. 1st, you demand evidence. 2nd, you demand scientific proof - not merely court room quality evidence of billions of witnesses. Now, you are asking how we know there are not excepts to our (not mine but mankind's) observations of the natural world obeying mathematical laws.

All this is a dodge; an attempt to avoid the question why does the natural world obey mathematical laws. Pathetic. Your answer is deny. Speculate that perhaps the universe does not always obey mathematical laws. Just ignore the known universe. That's ignorance on a cosmic scale. You are profoundly ignorant. Worse, you are profoundly willfully ignorant.

I shake your dust off my feet.

Ah another teenage tantrum.

Don't worry in a few years it will all change and you'll get a wider perspective on things.

You seem to really struggle when other people don't reach the same conclusions you do from available evidence.

I see science, you see fairies.

I see something I don't understand, I see something scientific that will eventually be understood and explained.

You see something you don't understand, you call it some divine intervention by a fairy in the sky.

Bless

Give it time. Things will change

 

[Wrangler]

I see science

ROFLMAO.

I JUST showed how you ignore the science, when it suits you. What was your explanation again for why the natural world obeys mathematical laws? You are self deceived.

 

[Lapidem]

Bless

 

[the.reverent.atheist]

What makes a fundamentalist think that their interpretation of the Bible is the one and true interpretation? Are they not acting as if they are God themselves when they assume that their interpretation must be infallible? I’ve never once heard a fundamentalist say that they could be reading the Bible wrong, they’re the only ones who hold the correct interpretation and everyone else is taking it out of context-except for them.

And also, how does it make any sense for a believer to say they don’t know what the future holds, but then turn around and say that you will come before God, in the future of course, after you die? I thought they don’t know what the future holds.

Also, how can a believer know anything at all when they say, “Only God knows”? If only God knows, then we cannot know anything at all, not even that God knows. It’s self-defeating.

It's actually much worse than that. Christians claim that their beliefs are based on what the Bible actually says. The Catholic Catechism says "A catechism should faithfully and systematically present the teaching of Sacred Scripture..." But the fact is that Christians don't actually believe what the Bible says. They don't even believe the first paragraph of the Bible! That paragraph makes it clear that the substance of the earth and the waters both existed before God began the act of creation by saying "Let there be light." But that would mean that the God of the Bible did not create those material substances. And that would mean that the God of the Bible is not omnipotent.

Some might argue that the first sentence describes an action that God took BEFORE he said let there be light:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (Genesis 1:1, RSV)​

But that's not a valid interpretation. The text for the second day of the creation says:

And God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” … And God called the firmament Heaven.​

(Genesis 1:6, 8, RSV)​

So Heaven was created on Day 2 of the creation, not prior to Day 1.

What is that first paragraph doing? It doesn't seem to describe an actual event that took place before Day 1. So why is it there?

Answer: It's an introduction. That paragraph is the author telling you, the audience, "I'm going to tell you the story of the creation, and here's the state of the universe at the time the creation began." As the rest of the paragraph says, the earth was, and the waters were-- prior to the time that God began the act of creation. So God did not create either the earth or the waters and therefore the God of the Bible is not omnipotent.

There are NO Christian or Jewish or Mormon or Muslim sects that would agree with the statement that God did not create either the substance of the earth or the waters. Here's what the Catholic Catechism has to say about this:

We believe that God needs no pre-existent thing or any help in order to create, nor is creation any sort of necessary emanation from the divine substance. God creates freely “out of nothing”:​

If God had drawn the world from pre-existent matter, what would be so extraordinary in that? A human artisan makes from a given material whatever he wants, while God shows his power by starting from nothing to make all he wants.​

(Catholic Catechism, 296; Part 1, Section 2, Chapter 1, Article 1, Paragraph 4)​

That is literally the exact opposite of what the very first paragraph of the Bible actually says. And that in fact is the position of every major Christian sect. In 1999 the Presbyterian church put together a special committee of theologians to determine once and for all whether the fairy tale of creation in the Bible is true. After much careful deliberation they determined that yes, indeed, every word of that story is true-- AND-- God created the universe "ex nihilo" (from nothing).

This is just one small example of the many ways that Christians of all sects have twisted and distorted the actual words of the Bible to serve their own purposes. Many of these distortions and misrepresentations cut right to the core beliefs of Christianity. It is a very dishonest religion.

 

[Lapidem]

The reality is that the story is not literal which is why religions have such trouble trying to shoe horn a literal reading into something that makes half sense.

The "separation of waters" refers to the alchemical process used in the Great Work where a gentle, body temperature distillation takes place. You begin with a liquid (a "water") and apply gentle heat to the flask it is in ("let there be light") and the result is that a vapour or mist is produced (another "water") that rises to the top of the flask and condenses. That is the "separation of waters". Genesis is not meant to be literal. It's outlining the secret of how to make the Tree Of Life through alchemy.

Gen 2 - "But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground."

Job 36:27 - "For He makes waterdrops evaporate;they distill the rain into its mist,"

Proverbs 3 - "The LORD by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens. By his knowledge the depths are broken up, and the clouds drop down the dew."

 

[the.reverent.atheist]

@Lapidem : Was your your response supposed to be related to my posting of yesterday? I wasn't talking about the separation of waters, as in Genesis 1:6 - 8. I was talking about the first paragraph of the Bible, Genesis 1:1 - 2. The first paragraph clearly implies that the God of the Bible is not omnipotent. That's very significant. I don't see how a discussion of the "separation of the waters" changes that inference. The author of the fairy tale was probably drawing on the broadly popular tradition of the ancient world that the universe was created from a preexisting chaos. It was just a widely held belief at the time. Not a fact, not true-- just a popular story.

It's interesting that you would say that "Genesis is not meant to be literal." That would certainly be news to a great many Christian fundamentalists who insist that every single word of the Bible is the word of God and is therefore absolutely completely totally 100% true. Maybe you don't take it literally, but there are plenty of people who call themselves Christians who do.

The description of the separation of the waters is quite interesting. I would say that part of the fairy tale probably has less to do with alchemy than it does with Egyptian mythology. Exodus 12:40 says that the Israelites were in Egypt for 430 years. That would have been plenty of time for them to have absorbed many of the religious teachings and practices of the Egyptians. Circumcision, for example, was practiced in ancient Egypt by the Sixth Dynasty-- before 2300 BCE. That is at least 1500 years before any part of the Bible was written. The cult of Osiris was based on the idea of the resurrection of the dead, a judgment of the souls of the dead, and eternal life for those who pass that judgment. By the time of the Middle Kingdom the cult of Osiris had become popular throughout Egypt. And there were several myths of creation popular in ancient Egypt, including that of Heliopolis. In that tale the universe began as a giant, lifeless ocean of water. The "separation of the waters," in all likelihood, was an attempt by the author to account for the earth's atmosphere by having God create a gap in the waters that filled the universe. Here's how Genesis 1:6 - 7 says it:

And God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." And God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. And it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven.​

(Genesis 1:6 - 8, RSV)​

It sure sounds like the universe is pictured as being filled with water, just as in the creation myth of Heliopolis. According to Genesis there are waters "above" Heaven. Really? Where, exactly? Your diagram shows the waters being below Heaven, not above. The universe is predominantly filled with the vacuum of intergalactic space, not water. The people of the time of the writing of the Bible could not possibly have understood the concept of a vacuum. Lucretius is famous for having said that there must be a void in things because if there were not, then nothing could move. That is absolutely correct-- but Lucretius was writing hundreds of years after the writing of the creation fairy tale in the Bible.

There are a great many people who call themselves "creationists" who believe that the story of the creation in the Bible is absolutely correct. As I mentioned in my previous post, the Presbyterian church appointed a special commission of theologians to determine whether the creation story in the Bible is absolutely correct, given all that is now known through modern science. They concluded that yes indeed, the Bible's story of creation is completely true. The only point they couldn't resolve was the length of a day. That is, the official position of the Presbyterian church is that the story of creation in the book of Genesis is absolutely correct, as written. Presbyterians take that story very literally, even if you don't.

 

[Lapidem]

@Lapidem : Was your your response supposed to be related to my posting of yesterday? I wasn't talking about the separation of waters, as in Genesis 1:6 - 8. I was talking about the first paragraph of the Bible, Genesis 1:1 - 2. The first paragraph clearly implies that the God of the Bible is not omnipotent. That's very significant. I don't see how a discussion of the "separation of the waters" changes that inference. The author of the fairy tale was probably drawing on the broadly popular tradition of the ancient world that the universe was created from a preexisting chaos. It was just a widely held belief at the time. Not a fact, not true-- just a popular story.

It's interesting that you would say that "Genesis is not meant to be literal." That would certainly be news to a great many Christian fundamentalists who insist that every single word of the Bible is the word of God and is therefore absolutely completely totally 100% true. Maybe you don't take it literally, but there are plenty of people who call themselves Christians who do.

The description of the separation of the waters is quite interesting. I would say that part of the fairy tale probably has less to do with alchemy than it does with Egyptian mythology. Exodus 12:40 says that the Israelites were in Egypt for 430 years. That would have been plenty of time for them to have absorbed many of the religious teachings and practices of the Egyptians. Circumcision, for example, was practiced in ancient Egypt by the Sixth Dynasty-- before 2300 BCE. That is at least 1500 years before any part of the Bible was written. The cult of Osiris was based on the idea of the resurrection of the dead, a judgment of the souls of the dead, and eternal life for those who pass that judgment. By the time of the Middle Kingdom the cult of Osiris had become popular throughout Egypt. And there were several myths of creation popular in ancient Egypt, including that of Heliopolis. In that tale the universe began as a giant, lifeless ocean of water. The "separation of the waters," in all likelihood, was an attempt by the author to account for the earth's atmosphere by having God create a gap in the waters that filled the universe. Here's how Genesis 1:6 - 7 says it:

And God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." And God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. And it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven.​

(Genesis 1:6 - 8, RSV)​

It sure sounds like the universe is pictured as being filled with water, just as in the creation myth of Heliopolis. According to Genesis there are waters "above" Heaven. Really? Where, exactly? Your diagram shows the waters being below Heaven, not above. The universe is predominantly filled with the vacuum of intergalactic space, not water. The people of the time of the writing of the Bible could not possibly have understood the concept of a vacuum. Lucretius is famous for having said that there must be a void in things because if there were not, then nothing could move. That is absolutely correct-- but Lucretius was writing hundreds of years after the writing of the creation fairy tale in the Bible.

There are a great many people who call themselves "creationists" who believe that the story of the creation in the Bible is absolutely correct. As I mentioned in my previous post, the Presbyterian church appointed a special commission of theologians to determine whether the creation story in the Bible is absolutely correct, given all that is now known through modern science. They concluded that yes indeed, the Bible's story of creation is completely true. The only point they couldn't resolve was the length of a day. That is, the official position of the Presbyterian church is that the story of creation in the book of Genesis is absolutely correct, as written. Presbyterians take that story very literally, even if you don't.

Hi yep well aware load of "Christians" and religious fundies believe every word despite how nonsensical and wrong that is.

Just pointing out that trying to make any sense of the story on a literal basis is always going to end up with problems. It all about alchemy, but all veiled in allegory. The story is there as wadding to hide the secrets.

.

 

[the.reverent.atheist]

Hi yep well aware load of "Christians" and religious fundies believe every word despite how nonsensical and wrong that is.

Just pointing out that trying to make any sense of the story on a literal basis is always going to end up with problems. It all about alchemy, but all veiled in allegory. The story is there as wadding to hide the secrets.

.

The second story of the creation begins as follows:

In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up-- for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground...​

(Genesis 2:4 - 5)​

That version of the creation might be interpreted as having something to do with alchemy, but the first story does not. The previous story ends with the following words:

Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God finished his work which he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done.​

(Genesis 2:1 - 2)​

Note that the second story cannot be interpreted as a continuation of the first story, since God creates man in both stories. The bit about the "separation of the waters" is described in the context of day 2 of the first story of creation, not in the second story. You're conflating two different stories.

 

[Lapidem]

That version of the creation might be interpreted as having something to do with alchemy, but the first story does not.

It really does but unless you understand the processes of the Great Work in alchemy it won't be obvious. The GW is mostly in 2 phases. The diagram of the flask I showed earlier was the 2nd part. In the 1st part of the GW we take a substance (a liquid), put it in a glass flask and bung an alembic or retort on top. i.e. there is a low part and a high part (heaven/earth?). Looks like this:


Let's read Gen 1 again;

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." And God said, “Let there be light,”

So we have the gentle heat (light) and the mist (spirit)

Moving on. . .

"And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so."

So heat causes the vapour/mist/spirit to rise so you have liquid below an liquid above. The waters have been separated.

Continuing . . .

"And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so"

So the water under the sky is of course the vapour that rose to the top and it has to be collected by the alembic and steered into the other flask. i.e. it has to be gathered to one place.

As this process continues the liquid at the bottom we started out with completely dries up leaving what we call detritus, a solid mass, the gross part that was in the liquid. Think of it like your electric kettle at home. There's a dry residue left at the bottom. This is the "dry ground". It conceals a vital salt but at this stage it can not be seen.

“Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years"

This refers to the sun and moon which represent the male and female principles in the substance, they serve as allegorical signs.

" God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night."

This Part 1 of the Great Work requires different levels of heat, it's a vital element. The "dry ground" detritus that has been left after the gentle distillation has to be calcined using a much higher heat than was used for the distillation. So we need 2 "lights" in this work.
The detritus is the male part of the substance and the "mercury" or distillate we collected is the female part. In alchemy the sun is the male principle and the moon is the female. So the text is telling us that the higher heat is to be applied to the male part - "the greater light to govern the day" (sun)

This kind of stuff runs through the Bible, snippets that allegorically describe the processes of the Great Work.

I realise that there are parts of the text I have skipped over. Plants, trees, birds, animals etc I don't know what they represent or if they are just padding. I simply recognise the parts that gel with the Great Work.

Hope some of this makes sense

 

[the.reverent.atheist]

It really does but unless you understand the processes of the Great Work in alchemy it won't be obvious. The GW is mostly in 2 phases. The diagram of the flask I showed earlier was the 2nd part. In the 1st part of the GW we take a substance (a liquid), put it in a glass flask and bung an alembic or retort on top. i.e. there is a low part and a high part (heaven/earth?). Looks like this:

View attachment 31860
Let's read Gen 1 again;

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." And God said, “Let there be light,”

So we have the gentle heat (light) and the mist (spirit)

Moving on. . .

"And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so."

So heat causes the vapour/mist/spirit to rise so you have liquid below an liquid above. The waters have been separated.

Continuing . . .

"And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so"

So the water under the sky is of course the vapour that rose to the top and it has to be collected by the alembic and steered into the other flask. i.e. it has to be gathered to one place.

As this process continues the liquid at the bottom we started out with completely dries up leaving what we call detritus, a solid mass, the gross part that was in the liquid. Think of it like your electric kettle at home. There's a dry residue left at the bottom. This is the "dry ground". It conceals a vital salt but at this stage it can not be seen.

“Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years"

This refers to the sun and moon which represent the male and female principles in the substance, they serve as allegorical signs.

" God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night."

This Part 1 of the Great Work requires different levels of heat, it's a vital element. The "dry ground" detritus that has been left after the gentle distillation has to be calcined using a much higher heat than was used for the distillation. So we need 2 "lights" in this work.
The detritus is the male part of the substance and the "mercury" or distillate we collected is the female part. In alchemy the sun is the male principle and the moon is the female. So the text is telling us that the higher heat is to be applied to the male part - "the greater light to govern the day" (sun)

This kind of stuff runs through the Bible, snippets that allegorically describe the processes of the Great Work.

I realise that there are parts of the text I have skipped over. Plants, trees, birds, animals etc I don't know what they represent or if they are just padding. I simply recognise the parts that gel with the Great Work.

Hope some of this makes sense

The text says nothing about a glass flask, or an alembic, or alchemy. It does talk about the creation of sea creatures, land animals, plants, and the other lights of the night sky, which I take to include stars and planets. None of these creative acts seem to be of any interest to you-- and yet they occupy a greater portion of the story than does the bit about the separation of water. You have taken an image-- that of an alchemical experiment-- and have forced the narrative of the creation to fit it. In my view that is an injustice to the author of the story, since I see no specific evidence that the author had alchemy in mind. You are reading something into the story that just isn't there.

I think you're completely missing the point on the waters below. The waters below are the seas and oceans. In the first paragraph the substance of the earth is described as being "without form and void." That means the earth was just a shapeless blob. When God gathered the waters under the heavens together in one place he would have sculpted the earth to provide a way for the waters to be held within the boundaries and shores of the oceans. It has nothing to do with funneling off all of the water into a separate flask.

On the first day God created light, and there were day/night cycles for the next three days-- until finally on day 4 God created the Sun. The reason we have day/night cycles on earth is because (a) the earth is a sphere; (b) it's rotating on an axis; and (c) it is positioned some distance (~ 93 million miles) from the sun. You need to have all three components to have day/night cycles. So there is no possibility that there could have been three day/night cycles before God created the Sun. The story is just silly. You're doing your best to dress it up in a nice tidy alchemical allegory, but it's just an ancient myth retold with the Hebrew God Yahweh. Read fairly it's a myth, not an allegory.

 

[Angelina]

1. What makes a fundamentalist think that their interpretation of the Bible is the one and true interpretation? Are they not acting as if they are God themselves when they assume that their interpretation must be infallible? I’ve never once heard a fundamentalist say that they could be reading the Bible wrong, they’re the only ones who hold the correct interpretation and everyone else is taking it out of context-except for them.

2. And also, how does it make any sense for a believer to say they don’t know what the future holds, but then turn around and say that you will come before God, in the future of course, after you die? I thought they don’t know what the future holds.

3. Also, how can a believer know anything at all when they say, “Only God knows”? If only God knows, then we cannot know anything at all, not even that God knows. It’s self-defeating.

I had to google the word "fundamentalist." It is true that some people can get a wrong interpretation of what the bible is saying, however, when you are led by the Holy Spirit when reading the bible, you are going to get a true and accurate understanding because the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God who teaches believers all things. Just as he knows all things. Even the deeper things of God. 1 Corinthians 2:10

God does reveal certain things through the Holy Spirit today. Sometimes God gives a personal revelation where he directly speaks to a believer through various means. Other times he gives us a message for others. In regards to the future - The bible tells us that only God knows some things which are not open for mankind to understand until the time God reveals it. Matthew 24: 36-37.

When it comes to times, days and hours in relation to future events. Particularly these last days and the books/prophecies that have not yet been fulfilled - only God knows those times, days, hours etc...

 

[Wrangler]

the first paragraph of the Bible, Genesis 1:1 - 2. The first paragraph clearly implies that the God of the Bible is not omnipotent.

Oh, how so?

 

[the.reverent.atheist]

I had to google the word "fundamentalist." It is true that some people can get a wrong interpretation of what the bible is saying, however, when you are led by the Holy Spirit when reading the bible, you are going to get a true and accurate understanding because the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God who teaches believers all things. Just as he knows all things. Even the deeper things of God. 1 Corinthians 2:10

God does reveal certain things through the Holy Spirit today. Sometimes God gives a personal revelation where he directly speaks to a believer through various means. Other times he gives us a message for others. In regards to the future - The bible tells us that only God knows some things which are not open for mankind to understand until the time God reveals it. Matthew 24: 36-37.

When it comes to times, days and hours in relation to future events. Particularly these last days and the books/prophecies that have not yet been fulfilled - only God knows those times, days, hours etc...

So how do we know who has been led by the Holy Spirit and who has not? If you ask anyone who claims to be a Christian whether he or she has been led by the Holy Spirit when reading the Bible, the answer will inevitably be "Well, yeah-- of course!"

Christians believe that Jesus is the person whose coming was predicted by the Old Testament prophets. Jews say that person hasn't yet come, so their reading of the Old Testament is the opposite of what Christians believe. Muslims say that the Koran is the actual word of God, as it is the result of copying down the words of Mohammed while he was enraptured by the Holy Spirit. Christians and Jews both say that the Koran is not the word of God. Mormons believe that the Book of Mormon was written by God on golden tablets and that it was translated from the original reformed Egyptian into English by the prophet Joseph Smith. These various groups of believers can't all be right-- somebody must be lying. In fact, most of them must be lying.

I say the best first step is to read the Bible-- or the Koran, or the Book of Mormon, or the Mahabarata-- for what it actually says. Once we know what the actual words on the page says, then we can figure out who's lying and who's not. And I'm pretty sure that when we do that we'll find that most people who call themselves Christians or Jews or Muslims or Mormons are lying to some degree.

 

[the.reverent.atheist]

Oh, how so?

Yes, the example you cited does indeed imply that the God of the Bible is the one true God of the universe. But I wasn't talking about that passage, or about any of the several other passages in the Old and New Testaments that say much the same thing. I was only talking about the first paragraph of the Bible, nothing else. Yes, I recognize that there are many other passages in the Bible. I was just giving one example of one very well known passage from the Bible that Christians do not believe.

It appears that you are assuming that all of the passages of the Bible are mutually self-consistent. That's not true. The writings of the Bible aren't like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle where all the pieces fit perfectly together. The Bible is a mishmash of different stories and thoughts and ideas written over an 800 year or so period of time. The Bible is chock full of self-contradictions, factual errors, false prophesies, and propaganda. If you are not aware of these facts then you have much to learn about the Bible.

 

[Wrangler]

I was only talking about the first paragraph of the Bible

Sir, my question was about your claim this paragraph indicates God is not all powerful.

It appears that you are assuming that all of the passages of the Bible are mutually self-consistent.

Not sure why you are starting off supposing another’s beliefs. Speaking of which, care to explain yours? The reverent Atheist is very meaningful.

 

[the.reverent.atheist]

As I explained in my posting #824, the first paragraph of the Bible clearly states that God did not create the material substances of the earth or the waters, since both of those substances existed before God began the act of creation by saying "Let there be light." If God (i.e. Yahweh) did not create those materials, then (a) Yahweh is not omnipotent; and (b) who or what did?

I interpreted your first response to mean that there are other passages in the Bible that clearly state that Yahweh is omnipotent. And yes, indeed, there are many passages in the Old and New Testaments that call God the Almighty.

But the first paragraph of the Bible clearly implies that Yahweh is not almighty. I concluded that your point in citing the passage you referenced was to prove that the Bible's portrayal of Yahweh is that God is omnipotent. That is certainly true of the passage, and others like it, that you cited. But it contradicts the clear inference of the first paragraph. I inferred that you must think that the first paragraph must therefore somehow be consistent with the passages that call Yahweh Almighty. If I was wrong to draw that conclusion, I apologize.

The simple fact is that there is no guarantee that all passages in the Bible will align perfectly. In fact, they don't. The claim that all passages in the Bible relate one clear, self-consistent message is simply orthodox Christian propaganda, not fact.

I have written an entire book on my personal beliefs, titled "The Reverent Atheist," by David S. Moore. It's available in paperback from Amazon.

Here's a link to my blog: David S. Moore blog

 

[Wrangler]

the first paragraph of the Bible clearly states that God did not create the material substances of the earth or the waters, since both of those substances existed before God began the act of creation by saying "Let there be light

You lost me. How in the world do you conclude from the 1st paragraph, that God did not create the (material for the) earth when the very first sentence states that he DID; God created the heavens and the earth?

 

[the.reverent.atheist]

You lost me. How in the world do you conclude from the 1st paragraph, that God did not create the (material for the) earth when the very first sentence states that he DID; God created the heavens and the earth?

Here's what I said:

That paragraph makes it clear that the substance of the earth and the waters both existed before God began the act of creation by saying "Let there be light." But that would mean that the God of the Bible did not create those material substances. And that would mean that the God of the Bible is not omnipotent.

Some might argue that the first sentence describes an action that God took BEFORE he said let there be light:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (Genesis 1:1, RSV)​

But that's not a valid interpretation. The text for the second day of the creation says:

And God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” … And God called the firmament Heaven.​

(Genesis 1:6, 8, RSV)​

So Heaven was created on Day 2 of the creation, not prior to Day 1.

 

[Wrangler]

Here's what I said:

That paragraph makes it clear that the substance of the earth and the waters both existed before God began the act of creation by saying "Let there be light."

We all know what you said. So, you don’t have to keep repeating what you said. However, your conclusion is perplexing that somehow the order of creation means God is not all powerful.

1st, is what. God created the heavens and the earth.

2nd, is how or what order. The fact that the material was created before form was given does not alter the WHAT, that God created it.

3rd, how or what order. God creating light before the matter that makes the earth does not alter the WHAT, that God created it.

It seems that you are not giving God the benefit of the doubt of what he explicitly stated based on details provided later. Rather odd.

 

[the.reverent.atheist]

Okay, I now see that my mistake was in not explicitly citing the second sentence of the Bible:

The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the the [sic] face of the waters.​

(Genesis 1:2, RSV)​

That sentence describes the state of the universe before God began the act of creation by saying "Let there be light." That means that the substance of the earth and the waters both existed first, before God began to create the rest of the universe. God therefore fashioned the universe from the preexisting substances of the earth and the waters and did not create it from nothing. So yes, the order of the events is very important. I thought that was pretty obvious, but apparently not.

In many ancient cultures the preexisting material was called the chaos. The preexistence of the chaos was a very widely held belief in the ancient world and would not have been considered weird or odd 2500 years ago. To modern eyes, yes-- the idea that the material substances of the earth and the waters both preexisted seems silly. But that is a modern perspective imposed on writers of the ancient world whose ideas and thoughts were products of their time.

The first three words of the Bible are "In the beginning..." That invites the question "Beginning of... what?" There is a Gnostic tradition that there was a time before the time of Yahweh, and that the chaos was created by other, more ancient spirits before Yahweh even existed. So there is evidence that some ancient writers and thinkers were uncomfortable with the notion of a preexisting chaos. But that was by no means a universal concern.

BTW if you want to believe in a creation-from-nothing scenario then you should go all-in with the scientific theory of the Big Bang, because that is truly based on creation-from-nothing. Or, at least, nothing more than a momentary quantum fluctuation. The book "A Universe From Nothing," by Lawrence M. Krauss," does a wonderful job of describing that model for a lay audience.