• no banana@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      The Bible says something about the earth and how it is good and the filament of the sky and something. The Bible that is, at least that’s what I read on the internet. Many fine people on the internet, the best people, but not me, I haven’t said it, but the best people probably. The best people say the earth may be - and I’m not saying it is but they are saying it - they say that the earth may be flat and that doesn’t take much text to cover I have heard.

    • bigfish@reddthat.com
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 years ago

      If you squint a little, the 7 days of creation in Genesis are relativistic-ish. 1 day to separate light from darkness (photons at 1 microsecond after Big Bang), another to create the sky (opaque universe at 370k years), another to form dry land and create life (earth formed, 9.3 billion years, life at ~0.2by later), etc etc. Anyone with a physics degree able to say what fraction of light speed god must have been travelling to make this happen such that only days passed for them between these events?

      • flatearth@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        2 years ago

        They are literal days.
        Our God is King of leading by example.
        Also, man was made from the dust of the earth. It was fitting that earth be created before man (also very important for prideful man).
        As He did, so we must do.
        It is repeated constantly that we have 6 days to work, the 7th to be set apart.
        Why?

    • MxM111@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      You are missing the point. The creation myths were considered complete. Nothing left to be known.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        Well yes, people who believe things that aren’t true won’t admit that they don’t know anything. I’m not sure why that’s relevant though.

        • no banana@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          I think their actual point was that incomplete explanations are nonetheless explanations. Still wrong though.

        • MxM111@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          You stated “this has been always true” to the statement that we have understanding that things are really complex and difficult to figure out. The answer to you was an example that there were times where we did not have such understanding.

        • flatearth@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          Material things are way below what God planned for man.
          Man was meant to be like God (NB God is not material) (in a good way).
          The Bible is not meant to be a physics textbook.
          Nevertheless, God owns everything. So things were talked about here and there…

          • SatansInteriorDsgnr@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 years ago

            The Bible also isn’t meant to be real. It’s a compendium of stories all put into one book, with tons of different writers. It’s akin to The Odyssey and shouldn’t be taken literally. Zeus didn’t come to Earth as a golden shower to impregnate Danae, and Jesus didn’t come back from the dead. They’re just fables.

            • no banana@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              2 years ago

              Oh the Bible is definitely meant to explain things. It explains things through a bunch of different world views from different times.

            • flatearth@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 years ago

              In the Old Testament, you’ll always see genealogies of key person being discussed to Adam (the first man).
              In the New Testament, the genealogy is from Jesus Christ to Adam (in Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts and by Paul I think).
              Zeus and Diana (profligate) were humans. But pagans deify their rulers.
              Let me make a second post…

            • flatearth@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 years ago

              The Bible is historical too:
              When Moyses drowned the Egyptians (Old Testament which Jews held and kept sacred)
              When Jesus, Mary & Joseph took refuge in Egypt (New Testament which Christians hold and keep sacred)
              In the first example, we learn that Egyptians used chariots (even far back in the time of Moyses).

              ‘Satan’ is part of your name, so I guess you know who he was, and who he is now.
              ‘Satan’ is opposed to the coming of Christ (the reason for all those genealogies).
              ‘Satan’ would do everything to make people forget why Christ came.
              ‘Satan’ would make Christmas (we all have our birthdays) to seize.
              ‘Satan’ wants people to believe that Christ is like Zeus and Mary like Diana (profligate).

              But you should know that Satan is a fallen angel.

      • XIN@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        If your point was that religions have oversimplified complex science to the point that people thought they fully grasped it, then I agree with you. Otherwise I have no idea what you are trying to say.