Bible Buddy 365 Daily Reading Day 1 of 365 Genesis 1, 2, 3. Holy Bible NLT

[muccisbistro]

YAY!!!!

[eppsman808]

I have read the Old and the New Testament and I Have been trying to make sense of alot of these writings but who is to say what is literal and what is metaphor? Everything created in 6 days. In the beginning he made light, day night Day 1. Day 4 he creates the Sun Moon and the stars to separate the day from the night again. Day 3 he created plants before the sun?????? and this is just the first page. I enjoy listening to you.

[Huttate1]

So your mythical god created the circumstances for man to fail and then punished him. What a cunt!

If I leave my dog in the kitchen with a steak on the table and come back in to find the steak gone, I blame myself not my dog.

[jonnyshieldsvideo]

@Huttate1 Surely it is logical to correct disobedience, if there are no rules or consequences there is only chaos. If you had kids would you just let them do whatever they want?  Man was given a clear choice, the dog and steak analogy is incompetent.

[Huttate1]

@jonnyshieldsvideo Evidently you have not read the bible hat is the only evidence for the mythical creature you follow.

[jonnyshieldsvideo]

@Huttate1 Quite sure I have, but If calling God a creature and trolling people for their beliefs makes you feel big I'll leave you to it

[Huttate1]

@jonnyshieldsvideo What do you call something that isn't real? I shall leave the trolling to you. Confronting proselytizers whenever they start spouting out their stone age myths is the duty of every sane individual.

[Huttate1]

@jonnyshieldsvideo Utter trash. I explain things to my kids. I don't lie to them.

[microaquarius]

@Huttate1

Dear Huttate,

If your scuba dive instructor told you not to hold your breath upon ascent, would you do it anyway? If so, who would you blame if you suffered a lung rupture?

[Huttate1]

@microaquarius I do not scuba dive. If you have a point; make it.

[microaquarius]

@Huttate1

I tried to make an effort to understand your dog and steak analogy. So, please, I would appreciate if you made an effort to understand mine.

[Huttate1]

@microaquarius Agreed, I was unfair.

The scuba diver would explain clearly to me beforehand the purpose of the detailed instructions he gave me and the effects on the human body of rapid depressurisation..

He would then train me in the procedures before allowing me out in deep water.

Your scuba diver [God] would materialise me 100 feet underwater surrounded by treasures and beautiful food, with no instruction beyond 'don't touch that one there'.

[microaquarius]

@Huttate1

Agreed, you are making a valid point regarding my diving situation that requires prior training.

In an Edenic situation for Adam, this danger did not exist. It was a simple instruction (Gen 2:15), an easy-to-obey-command from the master to prevent Adam and Eve from experiencing the misery that we have on this planet today. To me it's about respecting God's private property for my own good. I am sure that God wouldn't mind questions but Adam didn't ask.

[Huttate1]

@microaquarius Your God created the planet. DOn't make excuses for him because he screwed up.

In your world, this ass created a universe so that some apes on an insignificant rock would suffer misery during their short disease and strife ridden lives. And if they did not worship him he was happy to commit genocide and have war, rape, murder, torture, slavery and destruction carried out in his name.

And you worship this myth?

Unbelievable!

[microaquarius]

@Huttate1

You are a smart person, no doubt. But whatever it is that is not good in your life, don't let it make you feel bitter. Ok, give me a passage in the Bible where you find that God actually likes war, rape, murder, torture, slavery and destruction. I tell you something, mate, if I would have the choice between God's original purpose and this present world, I know what I would go for. The real culprits are greedy criminals that ruin the earth, and that is why God is the only hope we have

[Huttate1]

@microaquarius My life is fine and full thankyou very much. We could start with Job, who gets tortured for a bet between god and satan - who is his auiditor and no fallen angel. Or the flood, where he supposedly caused genocide, knowing it would have no affect whatsoever.. And most of Judges, where god's wonderful children of Israel go to war with everyone, and themselves, in his name, mudering raping and enslaving.

If your answer is God - you are asking the wrong question.

[microaquarius]

@Huttate1 Regarding Job, God has taken a dramatic measue for an uncomfortable reason. This measure was against God's will. Just like you are challenging my faith (and I appreciate it), Satan has challenged God with a good argument which forced God to prove the devil either right or wrong - will you still believe in me if I am no longer your wending machine? It wasn't a bet, it was a serious test on God. If you were rich, would you still hang out with people that only love you for the parties?

[Huttate1]

@microaquarius Satan the devil is a Christian creation. The Satan in Job was one of God's auditors.

But I thought your god was omnipotent. In which case he always knew the bet was going to be made - from before he created the earth. OR are you saying he is not omnipotent?

[microaquarius]

@Huttate1

God, to my limited understanding is an entity of supreme intelligence. Lets assume that Satan is not a mere Cristian creation. Lets say that God had known the outcome of your 'bet' in advance. Still, God would have been forced to prove the outcome by practical demonstration to show the devil that he was wrong. This is why God healed and rewarded Job according to his faith (Job 42:7-16).

[Huttate1]

@microaquarius So, your entity of supreme intelligence decided to create a universe billions of light years across so that we could live on a single rock and praise him. Why?

And he then tortures us, but that's ok so long as he heals and rewards us afterwards.

But if we rebel against the power that decided this was a reasonable thing to do.

We wil suffer in hell for all eternity?

Is that about it?

We can move on to the genocide of the Canaanites next if you like.

[microaquarius]

@Huttate1

Lets look at the Canaanites. God has rules, like an employer in the worplace. Break them and there will be consequences. The problem is not so much that God severely punished the Canaanites. The problem is that the world today has become like them. Wouldn't you become a bit peeved if someone vandalised your property?

Try Ezekiel 33:11- I take no pleasure in the death of the wicket, but rather that they turn from their ways and live.'

[Huttate1]

@microaquarius

A bit peeved yes - but I probbaly would not commit genocide as a first step.

And your all knowing god created the world knowing the canaanites would do as they did.

So which is it:

Is you god not all knowing as you claim.

Or is he all knowing and therefore created a world in which he knew that he would commit genocide multiple times?

You did not respond to my last post.

[microaquarius]

@Huttate1

Intelligence or omnipotence to us maybe different to someone else like God. Looking at intelligence, for instance, I feel severely limited when I even look at the miniature chemical lab inside a bacterium through a scanning electron microscope. How would something like me ever comprehend God, His intelligence and omnipotence? All I can say is that if God had acted upon His omnipotence in your situation, these people would never have had a chance to exist from the start.

[Huttate1]

@microaquarius How can you comprehend him when you have no evidence for his existence whatsoever?

So your scientific mind finds it perfectly acceptable to worship a god who started his game knowing that as a direct result of his actions many billions of people would suffer disease, torture and brutal death?

If you are happy to respond and move on; I would ask, as a scientifically minded person: a) do you believe that only your god can create life; and b) the bible is the literal word of god?

[microaquarius]

@Huttate1

Why do we blame God for our own shortcomings? I feel we should blame ourselves for what we are doing to this planet. I feel He is very patient indeed. The essence of science is open-mindedness. One fact is that scientists are not sure how the building blocks of life have combined to form a living system such as a cell, a molecular biological marvel. Remove one aspect of intracellular function and the entire system collapses. If a simple spearhead needs a maker, why not a cell?

[Huttate1]

@microaquarius Why do you retain the notion that god resides inside the cell when we have removing him from everything down to cellular level. God is simply a lack of understanding. There is nothing that science has not come to understand that required any god. From rainbows to earthquakes; plant growth to atoms; no sign of or need for a god.

God is now a philosophical argument because he simply does not stand up to science.

I don't do IMs prefer the conbersation here for all to see.

[microaquarius]

@Huttate1

Why would God represent a lack of understanding? I can give you a list of seriously well-known scientists that believe in God, and I tell you, mate, that they would merely smile at you with this statement. Science has it's limits. To be serious about something you need to know its limits to push further. From cosmology to biology I can give 100's of examples where science is still learning how to walk. Ask any scientist how life got onto this planet, and everything becomes vague.

[Huttate1]

@microaquarius Precisely what I said. God exists at the periphery of understanding. Whenever our understanding has increased and spread, god was not there. He will forever be believed to be in the shadows by the gullible and superstitious. God can exist only at the extreme; abiogenesis, before the big bang. Well he's probably safe there for a while.

[microaquarius]

@Huttate1

I tend to use what I believe to be evidence to support my opinions.

Talking abiogenesis. Unless you believe in panspermia, the theory of evolution all about abiogenesis, molecules that simply chance-arrange themselves into a living system. Wasn't it Louis Pasteur who proved this theory wrong, and I remember: Omni cellula e cellula'. Cloning claims to have demolished this concept without realising that their amitotic process in creating new cells was still controlled by minds.

[Huttate1]

@microaquarius That's right. And "the little perturbations that keep the planets in their correct orbits is a sure sign of the hand of god". The was Isaac Newton; undoubtedly one of the giants of science.

Your point simply confirms that even the most intelligent people, if superstitious, will see an opening for the supernatural at the limit of understanding.

Restating what we do not yet know does not prove the requirement for a god to fill the gap.

Abiogenesis has ought to do with evolution.

[microaquarius]

@Huttate1

Ok, ok, try this experiment. Get a truckload of Lego blocks and throw them into a swimming pool. In your lifetime I want you to monitor and asses how many of these pieces have made attempt to indicate the formation of a possible structure, lets say a robot, or a car or an animal of some sort or maybe an evolutionary harbinger to something worth noting. If you do or don't find such a coincidental attempt, pass this experiment on to your children. Someone WILL give up sooner or later

[Huttate1]

@microaquarius That nonsense is unbecoming someone who claims a scientific background. Sounds like the nonsense they preach on answersingenesis.

We both accept that at some point life was created from non-life. I assert it was by natural processes. You assert it was by magic.

The fossil record proves that complex life emerged from ever more simple forms, suggesting that at the origin was the first living thing.

Do you scientifically deny the fossil record?

[microaquarius]

@Huttate1

Before you dismiss a concept as nonsense, you need to show why it is nonsense. That is why I give evidence to show my belief. Let me teach you how it's done: Ok fossil record: Protoarchaeoperyx robusta and Caudipteryx zoui found in Northern China about 1998. Both dated about 120-136 mill years and claimed to be feathered theropods. Archaeoperyx, a true bird is dated 140-150 mill years. How can the ancestors be younger than the descendents? Explain it if you can.

[Huttate1]

@microaquarius In what paper did you read that they were in the same evolutionary line? None that I have read for certain.

Is your argument from this case that the fossil record does not prove complex life emerging from simpler life? You simply have to state that you accept or do not accept the fossil record; rather than keep looking for exceptions that prove the rule.

You have not answered the question regarding virus, pathogen transmission through the deluge.

[Huttate1]

@microaquarius The nonsense was the creationists 'Jumbo from a junkyard' claim with lego. Anyone who understands basic statistics and probability would know it to be true.

I doubt even a creationist would claim you needed a 183 people in a room to give you a 50% chance of finding someone with the same birthday as you.

But they spill out arguments as if they are trying to convince five year olds.

[microaquarius]

@Huttate1 How about you providing evidence and refraining from using the word 'nonsense'. It's very primitive argumentation. I believe in the fossil record but I believe it is not always interpreted correctly. My source:Ji Quiang, P.J. Currie, M.A. Norell, and Ji Shu-An, 'Two feathered dinosaurs from Northeastern China", Nature 393(6687):753-761, June25 1998. 'Jumbo from a junkyard' eh? Birthdays and the complexity of life are like chese and chalk, mate. Try a different comaprison.

[Huttate1]

@microaquarius Nonsense seems ta aposite word. How else would I describe your assertion that the bible is factual, yet you accept the fossil record. And the jumbp jet analogy is correct when you use the 'simple-chance' argument. We both know that it is far from simple chance.

No mention of all those diseases on the ark yet. But then the ark would conflict with the fossil record.

And if you accept the earth is not 6,000 years old, how much of the bible does that dismiss?

[Huttate1]

@microaquarius You believe that the Bible is the literal word of God. In which case I would ask you which of the passengers on Noah's Ark brought with them: Polio, Smallpox, Leprosy, Malaria, Syphillis, Gonorrhea, Herpes, Chicken Pox, Measles, etc. Because only your god can create life and only those on the ark could possibly have passed those diseases down to us all.

[microaquarius]

@Huttate1

Just to use words like 'nonsense' and 'jumbo from a junkyard' are very unconvincing verbal devices. You are smarter than that. Ok, before I give you an answer to the viruses I would appreciate your use of scientific, that is, biochemical and molecular biological evidence to suggest that you can arrive at an object of very high specific complexity such as a cell (not to mention the human body) with a genetical map that needed absolutely no form of thought for its formation.

[Huttate1]

@microaquarius We both know that science does not yet have an answer. There are serious theories but they are all dependent on a set of initial conditions and we do not yet know with confidence what the atmospheric conditions were at that point. You evoke magic to explain abiogenisis. I simply say that it is something science has yet to explain.

So we can both agree that Genesis is simply a creation myth.

[microaquarius]

@Huttate1

Because we know that science hasn't got an answer we need to keep our minds open. To your virus situation. Its a very new field and too complex to deal with here. Viruses have a very important function in nature, since they are known to effect the carbon cycle. Just as most bacteria are harmless and very important, so are viruses. I vaguely remember a microbiogist by the name of Morse suggests that 'disrupting the natural order, people inadvertent encouraged the adaptation of a "weed

[Huttate1]

@microaquarius Was that the answer to how all the viruses and pathogens that we know from history survived the flood?

[microaquarius]

@Huttate1

How many possible answers do you have? If you know anything about microorganisms you would look at the possibility of extremophile characteristics in many of them. Viruses that crystallise, tardigrades that can survive half an hour at near boiling temperature and up to eight hours being dipped in liquid helium (-272 degrees Celsius). There is genetical info loss in mutations etc. How about your reply to my question about jellyfish fossilisation?

[Huttate1]

@microaquarius How about you read my answers and see that the response is there.

I will ask one question to see if there is point in continuing this debate.

If science contradicts scripture do you accept the science or is your starting point that scripture is infallible?

[microaquarius]

@Huttate1,

Read my clues and think about what they could mean. Regarding your question: I keep an open mind but if science contradicts the scripture, it still doesn't prove itself to be correct. If science undeniably proves it wrong I will accept but hasn't happened yet. Example: The late Dr Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History fully agreed with a questioner regarding his book 'Evolution' that evolutionary transitions are missing in the fossil record

[Huttate1]

@microaquarius And that is your definition of an open mind - ignore the overwhelming consensus and cherry pick a quote that supports your predisposed position?

[microaquarius]

@Huttate1,

Looking at the fossil record, there seem to be problems that even scientists have not fully understood. Example: The Cambrian Explosion, the sudden appearance of multitudes of new forms of species and the reulting missing link.

By the way, fossil formation is not that simple. In your words, how would you explain the formation of jellyfish imprints as fossils?

[Huttate1]

@microaquarius You're right, and science loves questions. I do know a little about fossil formation, having lived for many years on the jurassic coast in southern England. The soft-bodied creatures intrigued me and I had discussions with several geologists about it. They are quite content that the geological record supports the fossil formation hypothesis. Look up Turbidity Current Deposits. Most soft bodies leave only a 'bottom' imprint as they decay from the top before being sealed.

[microaquarius]

@Huttate1,

Thanks for guiding me to this I have to do more reading but what I find is that these are caused by disasters like volcanic eruptions, earthquakes or the release of gas from hydrocarbon deposits under the seafloor, causing submarine avalanches. According to the Bouma Sequence, heavier particles would have deposited first rapidly impressing the structures before the lighter particles could settle? Consistent with Biblical catastrophism. (ex. sandstone near Ediacara, South Austr.

[Huttate1]

@microaquarius Oh dear! If discussing the deposition of soft bodied fossils, you consider the environment of those fossils. I gave you turbidity as a hint. Perhaps you need to consider a geology 101. And do not repeat the lie that your mind is open when you are attributing equal veracity to the writings of 2000 year old religious fanatics to the current scientific consensus built on centuries of investigation through the scientific method.

[microaquarius]

@Huttate1,

You have the unscientific audacity of 'oh dearing' me. Would you do this to geologists like Hagadorn, Van Roy and Derek Briggs? I don't think so. Science doesn't humiliate people for seeing other perspectives. Mate, there are geological geniuses a lot more constructive than you still trying to work out what happened. Something that cannot be directly observed by experiment cannot be established as a fact. Therefore, both evolution and creation eventually come down to faith.

[Huttate1]

@microaquarius Utter rot.  Evolution is fact. Creation is myth.

[microaquarius]

@Huttate1 Looking at the scientific consensus (regarding the missing links), just want to add a quote from someone:

'Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain. And this, perhaps is the most obvious and serious objection - which could be urged against the theory.

(Charles Darwin)

Surely, Huttate, we can debate without humiliation but scientific explanation.

[Huttate1]

@microaquarius Time for you to grow up. 150 year old quotes? Purlease. 150 years ago electricity & magnetism had not been unified; heavier than air flight was impossible; our galaxy was the only one that existed; we had no germ theory; etc, etc. I realise that your thinking is stuck 2000 years in the past, but Evoloution has moved on from the early and excellent work of Darwin. Only a superstitious fool would quote mine Darwin without educating themselves on the subject.

[microaquarius]

@Huttate1

Darwin noticed flaws in his own theory and I appreciate his honesty. Evolution has moved on from there? Ok. Consider this: In 1996, a headline appeared in the papers: "Feathered Fossil Proves Some Dinosaurs Evolved Into Birds" ( The Examiner, Launceston, Tasmania, Oct 1996). This fossil was called Sinosauropteryx prima (Ann Gibbons, Science, 1996). Four leading paleontologists including Yale University's John Ostrom later found the feathers were just a prallel array of fibres,

[microaquarius]

@Huttate1 Oh yes, I forgot a question: Do you know if scientists are researching current fossilisation processes on softbodies creatures, etc? Because you would think that nothing took place in the past that doesn't take place in the present.

[Huttate1]

@microaquarius No, they gave up research when someone explained to them that god did it all.

[microaquarius]

@Huttate1 Cool. A true scientific mind would maybe say something like: There are sedimentation experiments recreated in lab-situations which could tell us more, but there you go.

Science likes questions. ok. Why was the birth of Christ used as a time reference anyway? I mean, if he is just a myth or legend, why bother? Why not using another (more scientific event, lol) that happened around the same time?

[Huttate1]

@microaquarius Sorry, missed the last bit. I choose my friends carefully and so have never hung out with flakes regardless. But to clue you in I do hang out with people of various beliefs; muslim, christian [various flavours] and pagans and wiccans. But theirs are unproselytized beliefs and none of them accept the intolerant aspects of their chosen church. Not that I am suggesting for a moment that you do.

[nimrod1996]

This is great. I just found your readings. It's funny you have that verse posted. Cause I was searching for something I could listen to that will help me focus on better things

[dontknow1234567ful]

amen sister

[asianjovi]

Come to me, all who are weary and carry heavy laden, and I will give you rest." Matthew 11:28