Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Unacknowledged Accuracy of Genesis 1
zaron
Junior Member (Idle past 6293 days)
Posts: 27
Joined: 11-23-2006


Message 76 of 302 (366220)
11-27-2006 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Chiroptera
11-26-2006 8:13 PM


Re: pots and kettles, some of which are black
Yes. I used to be a Christian -- born again, in fact. When I began to doubt the inerrancy of the Bible and the existance of God, I prayed that he would guide me. He guided me to atheism. But this is off-topic here.
hmmm.. so are you saying God led you to the denial of His existance?
I'm sure that is not what you are saying for it is illogical. This I know you are not.
Perhaps you are saying he led you away from mans interpretation of Him so that you would not limit Him through some of the lies we learn.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Chiroptera, posted 11-26-2006 8:13 PM Chiroptera has not replied

zaron
Junior Member (Idle past 6293 days)
Posts: 27
Joined: 11-23-2006


Message 77 of 302 (366225)
11-27-2006 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by sidelined
11-26-2006 7:54 PM


Re: pots and kettles, some of which are black
And which real truth, do you assert, agrees with science?
science says that matter is contengent, and the real truth revealed in the Bible claims the same thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by sidelined, posted 11-26-2006 7:54 PM sidelined has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by AdminPD, posted 11-27-2006 9:05 AM zaron has not replied
 Message 79 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 11-29-2006 9:16 PM zaron has replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 78 of 302 (366227)
11-27-2006 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by zaron
11-27-2006 8:34 AM


Warning - Topic
Note to All:
This topic deals with the unacknowledged accuracy of Genesis 1. Not whether the Bible authors thought the earth was a circle or a sphere. Unless it is in Genesis 1, don't go there.
Also a reminder that this is a science thread.
OP writes:
Mainstream science has given us a pretty comprehensive theory of universal evolution from the Big Bang to the appearence of modern man. The biblical equivalent of this theory appears in the first chapter of the Book of Genesis. This biblical theory is presented in large brushstrokes but the similarities between itself and scientific theory are quite uncanny.
Evidence is key. Show your path or reasoning.
Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread.
Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour timeout.
Thank you Purple

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by zaron, posted 11-27-2006 8:34 AM zaron has not replied

ConsequentAtheist
Member (Idle past 6238 days)
Posts: 392
Joined: 05-28-2003


Message 79 of 302 (366989)
11-29-2006 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by zaron
11-27-2006 8:34 AM


Re: pots and kettles, some of which are black
quote:
science says that matter is contengent, and the real truth revealed in the Bible claims the same thing.
  —zaron
And the Wizard of Oz reveals that tornadoes occur in Kansas. Thanks for sharing ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by zaron, posted 11-27-2006 8:34 AM zaron has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by zaron, posted 11-30-2006 4:18 PM ConsequentAtheist has not replied

zaron
Junior Member (Idle past 6293 days)
Posts: 27
Joined: 11-23-2006


Message 80 of 302 (367150)
11-30-2006 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by ConsequentAtheist
11-29-2006 9:16 PM


Re: pots and kettles, some of which are black
thanks Mr. constantatheist
I would like to direct then your attention to the interpretation of Genesis as follows. I respect your opinion however harsh it may be and am truthfully anticipating your complete and brutal honesty concerning this. It seems that truth and science have parted ways and this is evidence of error in our science and or truth interpretations. The key, I believe, is to put our heads together and find out wherein lie the errors. I imagine there are plenty of errors of interpretation on both sides. We must be mature enough to embrace that notion and get on with the task of unraveling this mad mess.
Science is less likely to be misinterpreted I feel than the writings in Genesis for I think, obvious reasons. We have less evidence to handle in biblical issues (apart from personal experience), than we do with science.
One interpretation of Genesis which does not have very much popularity in the mainstream religions is as follows:
That verse 1:1 is an introduction to the whole Bible and all history. That it marks the boundary between time and eternity. It is not a summarized statement of what is to follow, for it mentions heaven first, while the following verses mention the earth first.
I will not include other scriptures as I would like to in order to prove that point. It is however a little difficult to show error of interpretation of a collection of writings that claim to hold the same truths within themselves, without referring to its other parts. The proof of the possible misinterpretation is mostly to be validated within the collective writings themselves. But I will do my best.
Next I would like to address something that appears to have been discussed already. The word "create" or "bara".
(If the hebrew word "bara" can mean "bring into being")
Part of this unpopular interpretation asserts that "bara" was used 7 times in Genesis chapter 1 - chapter 2. All other places "made" and "make" are used, thus possibly indicating that the 6 days work to be mainly reconstructive. It seems as though "bara" is reserved to identify the coming into existance of all living creatures, and spiritual life represented by man.
Next issue is the seemingly mistranslated word "was" in Genesis 1:2
"And the earth "was" without form and void;..."
the hebrew word for "was" here is "hayah", meaning "became". It is translated "became" 67 times; "becamest", "came", and "came to pass", 505 times; "become" 66 times and "come to pass" 131 times; and "be" in the sense of "become".
If this should prove to be true, then Genesis 1:2 should read "And the earth became, or came to be, without form and void."
Next issue is the seemingly misinterpreted words "without form and void" The suggested "idea" here is that the earth was created "tohu va bohu" meaning waste and empty. This conflicts with other passages throughout scripture of which you will have to take my word unless I am allowed an exception of showing. The truths of the Bible are to support one another. If indeed the Bible is where one can attain "truth" then it should support (itself) "in matters of its proposed truths" and if contradictions arise then one must consider the possibility of a misinterpretation at some point.
If indeed the above word was mistranslated causing a misinterpretation, then it would explain that Genesis 1:1 is an introduction of a grand event and Genesis 1:2 is the introduction of something much later.
To further support this idea consider the following:
the word "and" is used 148 times in Gen. chapter 1 through 2 to separate the 102 recorded independent acts of God. Verse 2 is as independent of verse 1 as to time and subject matter as all other separate acts of God. Verse 1 refers to the whole universe being created and inhabited in the dateless past, while verse 2 refers to chaos. The question one might consider is what caused this chaos and does it jive with the other truths revealed in the collective writings.
The next issue and the last for now to prevent too lengthy a post:
"Let" defined
"Let" is used 13 times in chapter 1. 1,464 times elsewhere, and in no case is an original creative act implied. The sense is "made appear" or "made visible" expressing permission and purpose in connection with already existing things.
The light, firmament, waters, earth, darkness and all other things mentioned here were already in exisence, but had been thrown into "chaos" and the laws that had previously governed them had been made "void".
There are more to discuss like definition of "firmament"
The "divisions"
Definition of "made"
Discussion of the "two great lights"
I look forward to your expertise in these matters. It gives me great anticipation to have your insight on these things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 11-29-2006 9:16 PM ConsequentAtheist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by arachnophilia, posted 11-30-2006 10:11 PM zaron has not replied

ConsequentAtheist
Member (Idle past 6238 days)
Posts: 392
Joined: 05-28-2003


Message 81 of 302 (367205)
11-30-2006 9:02 PM


- the intensely researched efforts of the JPS ...
- the collective scholarship behind the Stone Edition ...
- the highly acclaimed work that produced Etz Hayim ...
- the masterful artistry and expertise offered by Alter ...
- the often insightful contributions of Friedman ...
- the valuable contributions of bible.org ...
- the superb commentary of Sarna ...
Dozens upon dozens of Hebraicists representing tens of thousands of hours of Semitic language scholarship pouring over hundreds upon hundreds of Biblical and extra-Biblical manuscripts to unravel long dead vernacular and idiomatic usage; add to this the extensive and dramatic clarifications resulting from the rigorous scholarship of those like J.C. De Moor, Frank Moore Cross, Mark S. Smith, and others, and ...
... and you, in your apologetic-induced ignorance, arrogantly offer:
Next issue is the seemingly mistranslated word "was" in Genesis 1:2
Do you have any idea how preposterous this is? Or, for that matter, do you have any sense whatsoever of the cosmologies of Egypt and the Levant that informed the Genesis narratives - that, for example, creatio continua was embraced by the Egyptians, the people of Ugarit, and the nascent Israelites alike?
You asked for "complete and brutal honesty". Very well: one can reasonably infer from your posts that you are a tiresome and underwhelming apologist with only the most superficial understanding of science and Torah alike.
Edited by ConsequentAtheist, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by zaron, posted 12-21-2006 4:24 PM ConsequentAtheist has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 82 of 302 (367209)
11-30-2006 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by zaron
11-30-2006 4:18 PM


grammar
Next issue is the seemingly mistranslated word "was" in Genesis 1:2
"And the earth "was" without form and void;..."
the hebrew word for "was" here is "hayah", meaning "became". It is translated "became" 67 times; "becamest", "came", and "came to pass", 505 times; "become" 66 times and "come to pass" 131 times; and "be" in the sense of "become".
If this should prove to be true, then Genesis 1:2 should read "And the earth became, or came to be, without form and void."
people make this point here all the time. it's still wrong. let me (again) show you why.
from your comment, it is evident that you are using, or rather misusing a concordance. to say that hayah is translated "become" or "became" a number of times is accurate, but not entirely accurate. translations are not a 1:1 sort of thing. it may be, for instance, that there's actually a more complex phrase or usage that is not represented by the root words alone, and it just happens that the word for "was" is in the same place as the english word "become." and so it gets counted. as you will see, this is exactly what happens some of the time.
should we look at root words alone, as i'm sure you are doing, we would see the text like this:
quote:
Genesis 2:7

adam hayah chay nefesh
man became living soul
it doesn't read very well in english, but it reads like crap in hebrew. but we might see hayah being rendered "became" and think that's what it means. let's look at what the text actually says, shall we?
quote:
, —
v'yehey ha-adam l'nefesh chayah
and-was the-man to-soul alive.
and the man became a living soul
in this passage, the lamed prefix ("to-") indicates the change. that's the "come" part of "become." hayah (in this case imperitive?) is the "be" part.
there are a few other usages. in many, many instances, the future cases of hayah are rendered as "become" in king james english, simply because it flows better than "will be." that's how "become" was used then. in other cases, it's used to present a transitional sense where none exists in the story. ie: lot's wife. the hebrew says she turned around, and she was a pillar of salt. "became" is used in english because to present a transition that is only implied in the text. lot's wife was clearly not salt before.
but we are given no prior condition of the earth. and the default, literal translation of hayah is "was." it's a very, very common word in hebrew, and 90% of the time it's used it's a past-tense passive verb. there is nothing in genesis 1 to suggest anything else, and if the idea of change is present, it's because the earth did not exist before that point.
in all of the above usages, "was" or "is" or "will be" work just fine, but they sound a little strange.
To further support this idea consider the following:
the word "and" is used 148 times in Gen. chapter 1 through 2 to separate the 102 recorded independent acts of God.
and is a common prefix (not a separate word) and is used at the beginning of the majority of sentances in the bible.
"Let" defined
"Let" is used 13 times in chapter 1. 1,464 times elsewhere, and in no case is an original creative act implied. The sense is "made appear" or "made visible" expressing permission and purpose in connection with already existing things.
"let" is from the imperitive of the above word, hayah. for instance:
quote:
Genesis 1:3
—, ; -
v'yo-amar elohim yehey or, v'yehey or
and said god, "be light," and-was light
and god said "let there be light" and there was light.
really, "let" or "let there be" is god saying "exist!" again, case and usage and context matters. "become" wouldn't work very well here, would it?
There are more to discuss like definition of "firmament"
from the verb meaning "to pound" as a metalsmith does to harden and strengthen a metal object. implies strength -- a solid object.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by zaron, posted 11-30-2006 4:18 PM zaron has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 83 of 302 (367213)
11-30-2006 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by DrJones*
11-26-2006 6:49 PM


Re: Religion and Truth.
Arach is really the guy for this but I believe he's posted that the hebrew had a word for "ball" at the time of the writing of genesis. If they knew that the earth was a sphere why didn't they use the word for ball?
well, there's two modern words that would have worked well:
sferah, but i think that's form the english "sphere."
kidur, for "ball," possibly used in isaiah 22:18 to mean "like a ball" or maybe more accurately "like a heap." i'm not entirely sure that the ancient hebrews had a word for something shaped like a sphere, because it's not a shape they'd encounter much.
but their depiction of the earth is definitally flat for a number of other reasons...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by DrJones*, posted 11-26-2006 6:49 PM DrJones* has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by zaron, posted 12-23-2006 10:47 PM arachnophilia has replied

zaron
Junior Member (Idle past 6293 days)
Posts: 27
Joined: 11-23-2006


Message 84 of 302 (371436)
12-21-2006 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by ConsequentAtheist
11-30-2006 9:02 PM


I'm back
That was the funniest thing I have ever read, seriously. I have never been told off in such a way. I go away wondering if I should say thank you while feeling like crap at the same time!
Have I worn you out before I start oh great and powerful full of everlasting knowledge constantathiest sir?
lol!!!
Truly I am not offended. I am jesting with you. I know I am ignorant of many things. I imagine it must be very tiring. I appreciate you taking the time to stoop so low as to address my perfect stupidity. You tickle me greatly I mean that. Mostly its tickling because you meant every word of it with a passion. For some reason that makes it all the more hilarious for me I kid you not!
O.K. By nature I feel I owe you a reprimand. As a parent it comes to me automatically.
My good friend: (in my mind that is what I have made you, never mind it may always be a one sided relationship but hopefully not)
Knowledge you have.
Wisdom you misuse.
AND . Kindness is that place that you forgot to visit. You thought it was an unnecessary bother with no purpose. You have foolishly mistaken its power for weakness and because of its absence stands an obnoxious and stubborn brick wall.
Arrogance you obey perfectly and therefore you have become perfectly arrogant.
You should, as a rule, always assume the best about people. Even if the record shows most people deserve what you dish out. You should never forget what it is like to be unlearned. Perhaps you had a harsh teacher. Perhaps you had no teacher and you taught yourself. That would explain your problem.
But you must keep in mind my dear constantathiest that there are those who truly yet seek wisdom and understanding and that are not out to prove a preconceived point but rather to sincerely study it. My existence does not hinge on my beliefs, rather my beliefs hinge on my existence.
I am one of those seekers of wisdom and understanding.
I love learning. And in that process I have learned that it is more important to learn to love.
Now, why would you want to force a person through such anal passages in order to allow them to peek at the gems you have acquired?
I have 7 children and a lot of patience. (imd)
For the record, arrogance was not my intention as I'm sure you know. Ignorance is not arrogance.
But arrogance is a good indication of ignorance. And you my friend are not ignorant concerning your arrogance.
Therefore your behavior resembles that of a browbeating fool.
It’s the reverse of fecal matter in a silk stocking.
The reverse of a beautiful tomb on the outside with death on the inside.
So, clean up your act, it is sloppy and irresponsible.
Learn how to be honest AND respectful. Or else you may one day find yourself hitting the ground very hard after you saw off the branch you sit on.
Here’s a new proverb I heard. Difficult words spoken in kindness resisteth a mouth full of broken teeth, and truth spoken in respect resisteth a foot to the head.
I'm scolding you like I would one of my own children.
Like I tell them: “Play nice and be considerate of those weaker than you.”
Knowledge is great. Kindness, compassion and understanding are greater. Together they make wisdom. Wisdom is your ultimate defense and love is the only hand it cuddles under. But that is only my opinion.
I asked for your complete brutal honesty.
You in turn, sprayed me with your funkifiedness because you were insulted by your presumed arrogance of my question that I should dare ask after all the "GREATS!" have clearly exhausted! (don’t bother looking up that word. I created it just for you).
Love is the father of wisdom. Your response indicates symptoms of mental whoredom which would explain this bastardly behavior your imprisoned in.
Anyway, did you have any comments about the theory that I posted?
(Don’t forget that when one posts another’s theory, it doesn’t automatically mean that they believe that theory, but that they would like to test it.)
Just try and have your answer match the question asked please.
Keeping your new found manners in mind, I would like to hear what you have to say. If it’s too tiresome then don’t bother yourself. I imagine that being a constantathiest requires alot of vigor. Especially having to spend so much time beating down all these tiresome underwhelming apologetics.
much sincerity
your good friend
Zaron
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message or continue in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 11-30-2006 9:02 PM ConsequentAtheist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 12-21-2006 9:43 PM zaron has replied

ConsequentAtheist
Member (Idle past 6238 days)
Posts: 392
Joined: 05-28-2003


Message 85 of 302 (371505)
12-21-2006 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by zaron
12-21-2006 4:24 PM


Re: I'm back
I imagine that being a constantathiest requires alot of vigor.
Read better.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message or continue in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by zaron, posted 12-21-2006 4:24 PM zaron has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by zaron, posted 12-21-2006 11:16 PM ConsequentAtheist has not replied

zaron
Junior Member (Idle past 6293 days)
Posts: 27
Joined: 11-23-2006


Message 86 of 302 (371521)
12-21-2006 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by ConsequentAtheist
12-21-2006 9:43 PM


Re: I'm back
lolllllllllll
oooooooooopppppsssss
actually triple oops!
I realize I said that THREE times!!
sorry about that
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message or continue in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by zaron, : meant to seem a little more sorry
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 12-21-2006 9:43 PM ConsequentAtheist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by AdminPD, posted 12-22-2006 11:07 PM zaron has not replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 87 of 302 (371762)
12-22-2006 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by zaron
12-21-2006 11:16 PM


Off Topic Warning
Participants, please address the topic.
OP writes:
Mainstream science has given us a pretty comprehensive theory of universal evolution from the Big Bang to the appearence of modern man. The biblical equivalent of this theory appears in the first chapter of the Book of Genesis. This biblical theory is presented in large brushstrokes but the similarities between itself and scientific theory are quite uncanny.
This is not a general discussion of Genesis.
I haven't tagged all posts that are off topic, only the last few; so please reread Message 1 and respond accordingly.
Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread.
Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour timeout.
Thank you Purple
Edited by AdminPD, : Tags

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by zaron, posted 12-21-2006 11:16 PM zaron has not replied

zaron
Junior Member (Idle past 6293 days)
Posts: 27
Joined: 11-23-2006


Message 88 of 302 (371906)
12-23-2006 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by arachnophilia
11-30-2006 10:24 PM


Re: Religion and Truth.
but their depiction of the earth is definitally flat for a number of other reasons...
could you possibly direct me to that which has given you this notion?
I'm interested in knowing if you don't mind and if it's not too off topic.
thanks

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by arachnophilia, posted 11-30-2006 10:24 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 12-24-2006 10:25 AM zaron has not replied
 Message 90 by arachnophilia, posted 12-25-2006 12:59 AM zaron has replied

ConsequentAtheist
Member (Idle past 6238 days)
Posts: 392
Joined: 05-28-2003


Message 89 of 302 (371973)
12-24-2006 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by zaron
12-23-2006 10:47 PM


Re: Religion and Truth.
Why don't you first respond to message #82?
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message or continue in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by zaron, posted 12-23-2006 10:47 PM zaron has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 90 of 302 (372118)
12-25-2006 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by zaron
12-23-2006 10:47 PM


Re: Religion and Truth.
could you possibly direct me to that which has given you this notion?
I'm interested in knowing if you don't mind and if it's not too off topic.
i suppose it is marginally on-topic, but we have had whole threads devoted to flat-vs-round earth depictions in the bible. i was going to go into a long explanation, but i can see we've already been over a good portion of it in this very thread -- short of walking you through the creation story in genesis verse by verse and explaining what exactly it's talking about.
really, anyone who tells you that genesis is accurate to modern scientific knowledge has an agenda, hasn't bothered to read and think about genesis 1 carefully, or is just plain in denial.
if one reads the bible without preconceptions, the depiction is rather plain. the world is created from a great ocean. a pocket of air is formed by the creation of a solid object (the sky). the water below this collects and reveals land. sun and moon and stars are placed on this solid sky. we are not being given a depiction of the universe consistent with modern cosmology, with the earth as a spheroid object in an insignificant corner of the universe. we are being told the earth is the center (everything is made in preparation for man), and that everything outside of our own atmosphere is water. and there is nothing else. the earth does not seem to be round at all, because the earth is not a planet. it is simply land that becomes evident when the waters recede. there does not even seem to be a word for "planet" in biblical hebrew.
this whole story is almost word for word the sumerian depiction of the universe (which looks like an inside-out snow-dome), and identical to every other levantine religion's cosmology, and even similar to the egyptian idea of the universe (minus all of these objects being gods).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by zaron, posted 12-23-2006 10:47 PM zaron has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by zaron, posted 12-25-2006 2:03 AM arachnophilia has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024