Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 92 (8856 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-17-2018 4:54 PM
213 online now:
Dr Adequate, ooh-child, PaulK, ringo, xongsmith (5 members, 208 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: rldawnca
Post Volume:
Total: 837,008 Year: 11,831/29,783 Month: 853/1,642 Week: 267/460 Day: 22/44 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
456
...
21NextFF
Author Topic:   The Unacknowledged Accuracy of Genesis 1
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14228
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 31 of 302 (352287)
09-26-2006 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by danny
09-25-2006 11:23 PM


Re: Religion and Truth and Dogma
quote:

There are SIMILARITIES between Genesis 1 and conventional wisdom on universal evolution. These SIMILARITIES are there and there are too many of them to constitute a lucky shot in the dark.


The SIMILARITIES are based on "interpreting" Genesis 1 so it fits with modern science - there is no "shooting in the dark". The eisegetes knwo what target they are aiming at and are quite happy to strain the text to fit.

quote:

I would ask you to read Genesis 1, something you have probably never done or would ever dream of doing, and see for yourself whether these SIMILARITIES exist or not.

I did that and posted my findings Message 19. Have you read Genesis 1 ? Did you find the "SIMILARITIES" ? Perhaps you can explain why setting a solid dome in the sky to keep water out is "SIMILAR" to the expanding Universe. It doesn't look very similar to me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by danny, posted 09-25-2006 11:23 PM danny has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 32 of 302 (352314)
09-26-2006 6:41 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by kuresu
09-26-2006 12:07 AM


Re: Illogic in genesis.
there is a third option--they were just ignorant

In the absence of compelling evidence, I reject out of hand any suggestion that the writers of the bible didn't know that light came from the sun, the moon and the stars. (Of course, they were incorrect to the extent that they believed that the moon generated light, instead of reflecting it, but I don't think this diminishes my point.)

Also, it's my understanding that people had been farming for thousands of years before the bible was written. I find it very unlikely that in that time nobody realized the connection between the sun and plants. Even though they may not have known about the mechanism that made that connection significant, it seems probable that the connection was known.


Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by kuresu, posted 09-26-2006 12:07 AM kuresu has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by PaulK, posted 09-26-2006 7:15 AM subbie has responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 14228
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 33 of 302 (352319)
09-26-2006 7:15 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by subbie
09-26-2006 6:41 AM


Re: Illogic in genesis.
quote:

In the absence of compelling evidence, I reject out of hand any suggestion that the writers of the bible didn't know that light came from the sun, the moon and the stars.

I think it's pretty clear that the writer of Genesis 1 didn't realise that the sun was the source of daylight - just as he didn't realise that the moon only reflected it. The writer did know that the Sun Moon and stars were light sources but not just how important the Sun is. And it's not too surprising - daylight is diffused by the atmosphere as has already been discussed here. A naive viewer might think that the day sky was itself a light source.

If you examine the text it seems quite clear that the day/night cycle is set up in Genesis 1:3-5, in the first day.


3 Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.

4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.

5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night And (there was evening and there was morning, one day.

The Sun, Moon and Stars only appear in the 4th day (Genesis 1:14-18)


14 Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years;

15 and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so.

16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also.

17 God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,

18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good.

Yes, they give "light upon the Earth" but we mustn't take it out of context and ignore the earlier verses. Or the fact that this is the 4th day.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by subbie, posted 09-26-2006 6:41 AM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by subbie, posted 09-26-2006 7:51 AM PaulK has not yet responded
 Message 36 by Chiroptera, posted 09-26-2006 1:51 PM PaulK has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 34 of 302 (352325)
09-26-2006 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by PaulK
09-26-2006 7:15 AM


Re: Illogic in genesis.
Certainly if the writer intended it to be an accurate narrative of the creation of the universe, it would be enough to show that the writer didn't understand that light came from the sun. On the other hand, if the writer instead intended it to be a sytlised or metaphoric narrative, one cannot come to that conclusion.

I can easily imagine why a writer, putting together some sort of metaphorical account, would create light on the first day in the way that it is done. The account describes the process in terms of what is done on each day. Obviously, in order for there to be days, as understood at the time, there would have to be a light/dark cycle.

I'm having more difficulty understanding a metaphorical or stylised reason why the sun, moon and stars were not created until the fourth day, but literary exegesis was never my strong suit. In any event, as I said previously, the mere fact that daylight came three days before the light sources is not enough to convince me that the writer didn't understand that the sun was the light source.

I agree that a naive viewer might think that the day sky was itself a light source, but I don't think it necessarily follows that that is what the writer believed.


Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by PaulK, posted 09-26-2006 7:15 AM PaulK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by jar, posted 09-26-2006 11:27 AM subbie has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 30708
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 35 of 302 (352365)
09-26-2006 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by subbie
09-26-2006 7:51 AM


Re: Illogic in genesis.
You need to consider that the understanding of how we see, that light travels from source to object, then bounces back to the eye is a fairly recent discovery. As late as 300 BC Euclid still believed that vision worked by rays going from the eye to the object. This was in spite of his work on light in Optica where he accurately described the fact that light travels in a straight line and the law of reflection.

The connection between dark and light and the sun and moon really wasn't apparent to the writers of the period. Each item was separate and unique and they were not seen as part of a system.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by subbie, posted 09-26-2006 7:51 AM subbie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by MangyTiger, posted 09-26-2006 5:18 PM jar has not yet responded
 Message 40 by doctrbill, posted 09-27-2006 12:38 PM jar has not yet responded

Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6496
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 36 of 302 (352410)
09-26-2006 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by PaulK
09-26-2006 7:15 AM


Re: Illogic in genesis.
quote:
A naive viewer might think that the day sky was itself a light source.

Very interesting -- something that probably would never have occurred to me. But it makes sense. Even when I am in the shadow of a large building or in a valley, I can see perfectly fine. Which is not true for bright light sources that are local. Daylight, come to think of it, really is different that light from an identifiable source.


"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." -- George Bernard Shaw
This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by PaulK, posted 09-26-2006 7:15 AM PaulK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Dilyias, posted 10-02-2006 6:15 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 4213 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 37 of 302 (352441)
09-26-2006 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by jar
09-26-2006 11:27 AM


Re: Illogic in genesis.
As late as 300 BC Euclid still believed that vision worked by rays going from the eye to the object.

This view was still in common circulation until at least 1021 AD as Ibn al-Haitham (aka al-Hazen) deals with (debunks) it in his work Kitab al-Manazir (Book of Optics).


Oops! Wrong Planet
This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by jar, posted 09-26-2006 11:27 AM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Chiroptera, posted 09-26-2006 5:28 PM MangyTiger has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6496
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 38 of 302 (352443)
09-26-2006 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by MangyTiger
09-26-2006 5:18 PM


Eisegesis -- it's not just for breakfast anymore.
I'm surprised that none of our literalist cousins have yet misquoted some poetic Biblical passage allegedly showing that the Bible already knew that people see by reflected light.


"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." -- George Bernard Shaw
This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by MangyTiger, posted 09-26-2006 5:18 PM MangyTiger has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by ReverendDG, posted 09-27-2006 4:38 AM Chiroptera has not yet responded

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 1970 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 39 of 302 (352555)
09-27-2006 4:38 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Chiroptera
09-26-2006 5:28 PM


Re: Eisegesis -- it's not just for breakfast anymore.
I'm surprised that none of our literalist cousins have yet misquoted some poetic Biblical passage allegedly showing that the Bible already knew that people see by reflected light.

rofl i might go see is psalms has one about the light of god in the eye or some such, since people try to claim poetry is prophicy!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Chiroptera, posted 09-26-2006 5:28 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 624 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 40 of 302 (352632)
09-27-2006 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by jar
09-26-2006 11:27 AM


Re: Illogic in genesis.
jar writes:

As late as 300 BC Euclid still believed that vision worked by rays going from the eye to the object.

Leonardo Da Vinci also held to this opinion (according to a statement of his which I quoted in a paper on the subject for an English class about a hundred years ago).

I can't help but wonder how these men explained why it is that we cannot see in the dark!?

Edited by doctrbill, : Edited to pose question.


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by jar, posted 09-26-2006 11:27 AM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by MangyTiger, posted 09-27-2006 5:24 PM doctrbill has not yet responded

MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 4213 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 41 of 302 (352683)
09-27-2006 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by doctrbill
09-27-2006 12:38 PM


Re: Illogic in genesis.
can't help but wonder how these men explained why it is that we cannot see in the dark!?

Well the super-genome we had before the Fall contained the information for the 'high beam' rays but since then...


Oops! Wrong Planet
This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by doctrbill, posted 09-27-2006 12:38 PM doctrbill has not yet responded

  
Dilyias
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 302 (353717)
10-02-2006 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Chiroptera
09-26-2006 1:51 PM


Re: Illogic in genesis.
quote:

A naive viewer might think that the day sky was itself a light source.

I doubt this. A naive viewer would witness the the sun rising and the day beginning. As the sun gets higher in the sky things become brighter. As the sun lowers and sets into the void it gets dark again and the day is over.

In reality, there is no such thing as a day. There is always sunlight shining on one side of the earth, and the opposite side is in darkness. The invention of a "day" is simply a result of living on a fixed point on the earth.

Before people knew this, they thought the sun was shining light on the whole earth. In reality, this never happens. It is always day and it is always night. The genesis story is without hope when compared to reality.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Chiroptera, posted 09-26-2006 1:51 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by kuresu, posted 10-02-2006 6:33 PM Dilyias has responded
 Message 46 by PaulK, posted 10-03-2006 2:57 AM Dilyias has responded

kuresu
Member (Idle past 373 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 43 of 302 (353719)
10-02-2006 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Dilyias
10-02-2006 6:15 PM


Re: Illogic in genesis.
but, you can see in the shadow, no? And what is shadow caused by? Blockage of the sun. So where does the light come from to allow you to see in the shadow?

after all, according the first genesis story, there was day and night before there was the sun.


Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Dilyias, posted 10-02-2006 6:15 PM Dilyias has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Dilyias, posted 10-02-2006 7:12 PM kuresu has not yet responded

  
Dilyias
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 302 (353723)
10-02-2006 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by kuresu
10-02-2006 6:33 PM


Re: Illogic in genesis.
Perhaps the sun is strong enough to shine through you, and you are blocking only some of its light. From that point of view.

quote:
after all, according the first genesis story, there was day and night before there was the sun.

True. :-) And there was still light shortly after the sun set.

But God called the light day and the darkness night. Yet there is always light on one half of the earth, and always less light on the other side. Always day and always night.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by kuresu, posted 10-02-2006 6:33 PM kuresu has not yet responded

Nimrod
Member (Idle past 2775 days)
Posts: 277
Joined: 06-22-2006


Message 45 of 302 (353798)
10-03-2006 2:29 AM


LOL talk about being out of touch.
Animals that live outside their entire lives can tell when a storm is coming.They can sense subtle differences in weather changes.

We live inside (as we modern dayers do) our whole lives and take light for granted.

Nightime was avery rough time for ancient people (many dangerous predators come out at night to make matters even worse), the sun coming up in the morning was quite a relief.Look at how many people worshipped the sun.Infact Egyptians even put it higher than their precious life-giving Nile.

Ancient people would have been very sensitive to the fact that the moon helps visibility in a major way.

I have no idea what quotes can be mined showing that ancient people "were ignorant of sources of light" , but my suggestion is to simply reach out and touch basic reality.

Light came from the Sun,Moon, and stars.Ancient people (start with 3000 years ago and go back as far as you want) would have known it without exception.Maybe if "fire" was mentioned in day 1 (it isnt!) then I would believe that the Sun wasnt assumed to have been created/evolved yet.

I dont know if it was mentioned here, but I can also assure people that *highland* dwelling (important common sense issue!) Israelites would have known almost exactly what clouds were (and that they were the same thing as fog).Crash (or splash?) goes the typical "literal windows of heaven" argument against the Bible.

I do admit that ancient peoples MAY have thought of the heavens as being water over a dome,infact I think they did.But what we dont know (except know-it-alls which are too many IMHO) is whether they thought every space above,below, and around Earth was water (with earth as just an island or group of islands with one giant dome), or if there was a bottom part of foundational land with pillars holding up domed Earth and just water over it.I am sure there were many views (a good many we dont know about in addition to the 2 above), but with regards to the Bible, the idea of outer-space being mistaken as water (above, below, and around an atmosphere described as "firmament")seems to be a fair detection.

I also dont see how the Earth being half covered by light (dis)proves anything (I know that was mentioned)in Genesis.

I have mentioned this before, but it would be nice if the Bible critics could be questioned on some of their claims.I am just making general critiques.I admit that this whole thread is in the context of yet another Christian attempt to explain Genesis (Im not even sure what this thread is supposed to mesh Genesis with,as it doesnt seem related to mainstream science) but I almost think it would be best if the Christians would turn their attention to Bible critics.

Put them on trial for once.

I have yet to see any Genesis 1 critics quote the Mesopotamian "proto-types" so we can see what they said about the order of events.Show us that the Genesis "source material",which are generally more elaborate and detailed on the Creation parallel, have the order of events in a certain sequence.

I see alot of blanket statements by Genesis critics, but little documentation.

Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : detected a typo


Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by jar, posted 10-11-2006 12:48 PM Nimrod has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
456
...
21NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018