Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 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 6294 days)
Posts: 27
Joined: 11-23-2006


Message 91 of 302 (372139)
12-25-2006 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by arachnophilia
12-25-2006 12:59 AM


Re: Religion and Truth.
Thank you for your quick response. I, however will need some time to respond to message 82 as I was kindly reminded by my good friend. I will try and keep the posts kind of short. I'll break them up so that it isn't so time consuming. I have questions for everything and you seem to be just the right guy to ask! I have some ideas and other scriptures that shed light on the conclusions that you have concerning Genesis. I think the Bible should agree with itself concerning truth, but concerning matters like this, I'm starting to see that it probably wasn't given for those purposes.
Thanks again for your time.
Happy holidays, (if they pertain to your custom)if not, then, happy day!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by arachnophilia, posted 12-25-2006 12:59 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by arachnophilia, posted 12-25-2006 2:40 AM zaron has not replied
 Message 93 by AdminPD, posted 12-25-2006 6:28 AM zaron has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 92 of 302 (372142)
12-25-2006 2:40 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by zaron
12-25-2006 2:03 AM


Re: Religion and Truth.
I have questions for everything and you seem to be just the right guy to ask!
well, not for everything. i promise you there is a lot i do not know.
I have some ideas and other scriptures that shed light on the conclusions that you have concerning Genesis.
i have seen a lot of apologetic stuff concerning this, and it's a rather tricky case to defend when you get into "that's not what this word means" vs "well that's what the authors must have meant since they didn't have words for that." what it comes down to, imho, is the difference between a straightforwards and careful reading of the text, pitted against an attempt to jam the text into something vaguely resembling reality. literal, vs distortionary interpretations.
I think the Bible should agree with itself concerning truth, but concerning matters like this, I'm starting to see that it probably wasn't given for those purposes.
i don't think the bible has to agree, and there are instances were it very plainly does not, even on matters of great importance. the thing is that it is a very human text, and there are hundreds of sets of fingerprints all over it, and as many if not more voices to be heard in it. and real life is complicated and difficult and not always consistent. we should expect debate and subtlety and contradiction.
if it was one consistent little rulebook on how to live our lives, direct from god, it would be FAR less interesting, and meaningful, and valuable. it would tell us far less about ourselves. it would be like cutting it down to just the ten commandments -- what would the bible be without the 23rd psalm? or the 22nd? or song of songs? or job?
Happy holidays, (if they pertain to your custom)if not, then, happy day!
merry christmas to you as well.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by zaron, posted 12-25-2006 2:03 AM zaron has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Nimrod, posted 12-29-2006 1:55 AM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 95 by Nimrod, posted 12-29-2006 3:23 AM arachnophilia has not replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 93 of 302 (372150)
12-25-2006 6:28 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by zaron
12-25-2006 2:03 AM


Stick to the Topic
Zaron,
Please get back to the topic. It concerns the unacknowledged accuracy of Genesis 1.
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.
While it is fascinating to pick Arach's brain, you aren't furthering the discussion started in the OP. Please do not continue in this direction.
If you respond to Message 82 which seems to only deal with word meanings, please tie it back to the topic.
As I said in Message 87, this is not a general discussion of Genesis.
If you continue to disregard my warnings, I will suspend you for 24 hours.
Topic closed for a short time to allow viewing of the warning.
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 91 by zaron, posted 12-25-2006 2:03 AM zaron has not replied

Nimrod
Member (Idle past 4916 days)
Posts: 277
Joined: 06-22-2006


Message 94 of 302 (372688)
12-29-2006 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by arachnophilia
12-25-2006 2:40 AM


Re: Religion and Truth.
i have seen a lot of apologetic stuff concerning this, and it's a rather tricky case to defend when you get into "that's not what this word means" vs "well that's what the authors must have meant since they didn't have words for that." what it comes down to, imho, is the difference between a straightforwards and careful reading of the text, pitted against an attempt to jam the text into something vaguely resembling reality. literal, vs distortionary interpretations.
You keep jumping several steps ahead and using assumption's that only fit 1 paradigm.
If the text behind Genesis Chapter 1 originated in the 1000 years before the common era, then EVERYTHING you said is correct.
But if it (or the documents behind it) was written in a lost language (pre-BLL) WAYYYYYYY over 2500 years ago, then one has to assume that not just "words" (ie.vocabulary definitions from 1000BCE),but grammar, syntax, morphology and ultimately entire sentences will only vaguely resemble (in a c2500 year old translation) what the original document described.
The many translations between the Pre-Babel language and finally down to Classical Hebrew(c.900-600BCE)would see quite a few distortions.Mainly based on the scribe's(doing the translations)limited scientific knowledge.That(scientific illiteracy) may not even be the proverbial 800 pound gorilla in the room.Lexical issues COULD perhaps be the most important factor for us to consider THOUGH that would be only 1 of many linguistic factors to consider.
We cant impose 21st century assumptions on an ancient Semitic mind.It gets 1000 times worse when we overlook the entire set of complicated issues that would be faced during the translation process.
And if the original material that made up Genesis 1(assuming it was before known languages emerged)was passed via oral tradition, then the distortion would simply be unreal.
It is NOT just a simple issue of "thats what this [3000 year old] word means" (vocabulary)infact just to focus on that 1 area would be to fail to understand the complex situation. Though the primitive lexicon is a tremendous issue to consider.But the original meaning of Genesis 1 would have been LONG lost by the Israelite monarchy period.So the Lexical issues would almost only be relevent back in the BLL time period(slightly after or before).
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 92 by arachnophilia, posted 12-25-2006 2:40 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by arachnophilia, posted 01-01-2007 12:48 AM Nimrod has replied

Nimrod
Member (Idle past 4916 days)
Posts: 277
Joined: 06-22-2006


Message 95 of 302 (372698)
12-29-2006 3:23 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by arachnophilia
12-25-2006 2:40 AM


Another off topic turn (my bad) coming up..
Arach.
I have a question (has to do with historical Amorite/Canaanite historical linguistic issues).
I cant get the search engine to respond to my keywords , so Ill ask you if there has ever been any discussion of the possible time periods for a YHWH verb (in whatever conjugation).
The specific question on my mind is if anybody has a clue when final "Y" changed to H in verbs.
The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament seems to indicate Amorite imperfect (conjugated) words statring with "Y" (not to be confused with the "specific question" above which is about the word ending) from c.2000 BCE to the Amarna period but its in cuneiform.The old word HYH (then HWY before W turned to Y and the final Y to H)is also present in inperfect forms through that period but they arent sure if it is "to live" or "to be".
Ill take whatever discussion I can read, but has anybody talked about when the final Y may changed to H plus/or other hsitorical issues?
YHWH has the archaic (by Biblical hebrew time-frames) "W" prior to a change to Y but the last consonant is the later "H".
Anyway, if you can remember any specific threads where anything related to historical "YHWH" is discussed, then I would appreciate a link.
Thanks and no problem if you cant remember!
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message or continue in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning - Use the Quick Question thread for questions like this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by arachnophilia, posted 12-25-2006 2:40 AM arachnophilia has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 96 of 302 (373322)
01-01-2007 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Nimrod
12-29-2006 1:55 AM


Re: Religion and Truth.
i would be happy to debate this and your other post in the appropriate thread, which might be this one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Nimrod, posted 12-29-2006 1:55 AM Nimrod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Nimrod, posted 01-02-2007 5:22 AM arachnophilia has not replied

Nimrod
Member (Idle past 4916 days)
Posts: 277
Joined: 06-22-2006


Message 97 of 302 (373616)
01-02-2007 5:22 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by arachnophilia
01-01-2007 12:48 AM


Hmm,where to respond?
I was first going to post in the thread the Mod directed me to,then I was going to post in the one you directed me to.
You might not see my comment the first(Mod thread) and the 2nd (your link) may not fit the YHWH topic(I could try but it may get the "OFF TOPIC do not reply" seal).
Either way, I would have to post here to tell you where I post(lol), so Ill just post here again while deciding.
Lets go to the MODS link and sort this out.I am wondering if there are links to old YHWH topics buried in certain threads.
BTW,I do like the Mods "do not respond" seal.I think their reasoning is rock solid.They surely know that my first post was on topic (Genesis 1 and the specific scientific accuracy of the extant text) but saw it for what it was:a short reminder of differing paradigms (without regard to whether one was correct & if the other was of divine inspiration or not).They also knew that its usefulness had expired and would do nothing but lard the thread with a dozen posts on another side topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by arachnophilia, posted 01-01-2007 12:48 AM arachnophilia has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by MacCullock, posted 02-03-2007 1:13 PM Nimrod has not replied

MacCullock
Junior Member (Idle past 6262 days)
Posts: 5
From: Southern California, USA
Joined: 02-01-2007


Message 98 of 302 (382138)
02-03-2007 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Nimrod
01-02-2007 5:22 AM


Read the Bible as obviously as possible
danny writes:
As it stands, the chronology of universal presented in Genesis is as follows:
Light - the Big Bang
Firmament - the expanse/expansion of the Universe
Earth
Seas
Vegetation
Sun, Moon and stars
Oceanic Life
Land based Animals
Mankind
HOW TO READ THE BIBLE.
Unfortunately you are making some of the same erroneous Young Earth Creationist extra-scriptural assumptions from the middle ages, before we knew much about the age of the earth and the solar system, etc. God requires us to look at the glory of His creation in Psalm 19 - not ignore what His creation teaches us.
God requires us to test everything especially such opinions of men which can be based on mistaken assumptions. We should accept claims consistent with known truth, and test them by looking at what they predict which can be verified. This is not only the way we are to determine useful scientific claims, God gave the same principles several thousand years before scientists did, when He told Israel how to discern which prophet must be obeyed and which should be stoned in Deuteronomy 18. Sir Francis Bacon first put forth those principles, and he was a Bible student, but I can't give an actual quote that it came from the Bible.
Read ONLY what the Bible actually says, and when you have questions look carefully at the original Hebrew because that was what earlier or biased translators were trying to do. The Bible requires us to read it in the most obvious way possible which makes sense, but consider related Scripture, PLUS well verified knowledge of His creation if you really want His truth.
Be VERY careful not to accept additions to Scripture without a clear reference, because...
In Revelation 22:18, God writes:
If anyone adds anything to what is written here, God will add to that person the plagues described in this book.
CREATE IS NOT MAKE, MAKE IS NOT CREATE.
The first assumption to forget is that God always means creation from nothing. If God doesn't use "create" (the Hebrew "bara"), don't assume that is what He means (that would be adding to scripture against Proverbs 30:5-6). The heavens and the earth were created from nothing in Gen 1:1, so the stars and sun were created from nothing first, then probably later the earth. Since it says "and earth" it may have been later but we cannot assert that must be what God means.
Read it again in one of the more modern translations. Genesis 1, New Living Translation (Courtesy of BibleGateway.com)
THE SIX DAYS COME AFTER "IN THE BEGINNING".
When God discusses the six days specifically, He mentions nothing about creating any part of heaven or earth (Gen 1:31, Gen 2:1, Gen 2:4b, Exodus 20:11). We should assume the first day begins like the other five, with God speaking something into creation or appearance (Gen 1:3). During the time represented by the six days, only three kinds of living things are created from nothing, no part of the heavens nor the earth.
In the beginning must come prior to the first day by some unspecified time, because nothing done during in the beginning occurs during the six days and vice versa. The word translated as "in the beginning" is used many other places for unspecified time introducing a new period of activity, such as in Jeremiah 28:1 and 49:34 about the beginning of some king's reigns (courtesy of BlueletterBible.org's Concordance "C" button).
There is every reason to assume that during the first day God lets light reach the surface of the waters, and there is no scriptural basis to assert God did anything else about the creation process that day. Reading Gen 1:3-4, it is almost a definition of a day. The best way to see this is in the New American Standard Bible version of Genesis one, which emphasises word-for-word translation rather than thought for thought.
Emphasis added in this excerpt.
In Genesis 1 (NASB), God writes:
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.
3Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light day, and the darkness He called night And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
Then God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.... And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
9Then God said, "Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so.... Then God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, ... The earth brought forth vegetation, ... There was evening and there was morning, a third day.
14Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, ... and for days and years; ... 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....
There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.
20Then God said, "Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens. God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves... and every winged bird after its kind.... There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
24 Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so.... Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth.... there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
What every other Bible calls "the first day", the NASB calls "one day" not "the first" day. "The first" might be mistaken to mean no creation occured before that point, which is probably why God words it so. The second through fifth day references are NOT "the" second, for example but "a second". It is my assumption this should be read as if God is not referring to five specific consecutive 24 hour days, but rather five consecutive series of days, with each series (except the first) being of unmentioned length and each series represented by one day of the seven-day week God is trying to teach us about here (see Exodus 20:11 again). This is more clearly true when you realize God is saying at least one typical vegetation growing season occured during the period represented by "a third day" (Genesis 1:11-12).
The "and it was so" of Gen 1:24 means God accomplished that land creatures reproduced their kind in the most obvious way, requiring at least months of normal time like it does today. It is also true God sometimes speaks of His future work as if it is already accomplished because He foreknows it will be fulfilled. So these declarations God accomplished a growing season or animal gestation in one day could be read as that He ordained all the parameters of success in one day, and it was later fulfilled. Another example of calling done what God foreknows will be done later is the language actually used about Abraham already being the "father of nations" several years before his first child was born Genesis 17:1-8. The actual Hebrew is that God says Abraham IS already the father of nations, but this NLT translates it in more modern English as a promise about the future.
I assume God calls the final day of the six "the sixth day" because that is when everything came to completion for His purposes. "The sixth" could also be specific because God has one specific day in mind representing the entire period, or because He actually did complete all that in one twenty-four hour day. So many many things seem to occur at their normal pace then that the 24 hour interpretation seems not so obvious.
The Hebrew word translated as "day" is "yom" which is a word for a period of activity or daylight that can be many days or years, or just an hour. God doesn't try to speak of His activity before there was observable daylight on the earth because it would make no sense to speak of daylight activity before men could have seen daylight. The word "yom" is also used in Gen 2:4 referring to the entire six yoms when God made heaven and earth complete.
Why does God use the terms morning and evening with each day reference if it isn't about a 24 hour day? I assume we are to read them as the beginning and ending of each series of days represented by that corresponding day of the week God is teaching us about. There is scriptural precedent for that interpretation in Psalm 90:5-6, by Moses himself about the beginning and ending of the life of grass.
WHY WAS IT DARK ON "ONE DAY"?
If God created the sun in the beginning, why is it dark at the start of "one day"? You need to read the scripture which shatters the YEC reading of Genesis 1 in pieces. Someone nearly posted it here before, but now I get to glorify His truth...
In Job 38:2-9 (NASB), God writes:
Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge? ... Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? ... Who laid its cornerstone, when the morning stars sang together...? Or who enclosed the sea with doors when, bursting forth, it went out from the womb; When I made a cloud its garment and thick darkness its swaddling band,
Plainly the earth was constructed after the morning stars, then the sea burst forth, and then thick clouds covered the earth. Since God does not claim this all happened in an instant, we should assume it occured before daylight reached the surface of the waters. God is loosely referring to the construction of this entire blue planet for men of all ages so they may learn how to relate to the Creator and His work (and how foolish was the Egyptian worship of false gods of the sun, earth, and animals). We should expect illustrative terms from typical human activity, not celestial mechanics. This appears to agree with current science that the earth surface was some sort of land-form before the seas existed. It does not preclude forming the seas by condensation, since the water might have burst forth partly as steam before it became those thick clouds, plus of course the thick clouds are well described as thinning dramatically between "one day" and "a fourth day".
THE FIRMAMENT.
The usual interpretation of forming the firmament is simply that the thick clouds above the water separated from the seas. This formed the sky under clouds and above the sea, which could be described from the surface as like an upside down bowl (a partial sphere) in shape.
PLANTS BEFORE SUNLIGHT?
Energy from sunlight reaches the surface of the earth even when it is cloudy, so there is no contradiction in claiming that land vegetation was produced after the day/night cycle was observable and before the sun itself could be discerned as a body in the heavens. Nor is there any need for a extra-scriptural miraculous source of light and energy God does not mention (a common sin of the YEC's).
WHEN ANIMAL LIFE BEGAN.
As for when many kinds of animal life began, God is not specific. About sea and land creatures God is mentioning only those with the "breath of life" in them, presumably air-breathers like a prototype whale, crocodile, or horse which would be familiar to men for example. Those mentioned are probably the ancestral animal type for all of their genus. This means God does not say when fish, bacteria, molluscs, insects, or earthworms began, nor whether they were created from nothing or more primitive types of creatures.
There is much more to be said, but I will have to come back to this when I can. Enjoy!
TOPIC - Please read Admin Message 102 before responding to this post.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

My child, pay attention to what I say. Listen carefully to my words. Don’t lose sight of them. Let them penetrate deep into your heart, for they bring life to those who find them, and healing to their whole body. Proverbs 4:20-22, NLT
Blog: DefendOthers.blogspot.com The Dead Sea Scrolls in San Diego 2007! www.SDScrolls.org

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Nimrod, posted 01-02-2007 5:22 AM Nimrod has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by AdminPD, posted 02-03-2007 1:35 PM MacCullock has replied
 Message 101 by arachnophilia, posted 02-03-2007 11:22 PM MacCullock has replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 99 of 302 (382147)
02-03-2007 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by MacCullock
02-03-2007 1:13 PM


Welcome to EvC
Welcome MacCullock,
Glad you decided to add to our diversity. We have a wide variety of forums for your debating pleasure, but I warn you it can become habit forming.
Since you quoted danny, but responded to MightyPlaceNimrod's post (which isn't really dealing with the topic, I'm assuming you meant to respond to danny.
Use the little green button at the bottom right side of the post you are responding to. If you don't, following the discussion becomes difficult and the person you want a response from won't be emailed a note that a response has been made.
In the purple signature box below, you'll find some links that will help make your journey here pleasant.
Pay particular attention to our Forum Guidelines and all will go well.
Again, welcome and fruitful debating. Purple

Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encylopedia Brittanica, on debate

Links for comments on moderation procedures and/or responding to admin msgs:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Great Debate Proposals
    Helpful links for New Members:
    Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], and Practice Makes Perfect

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 98 by MacCullock, posted 02-03-2007 1:13 PM MacCullock has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 105 by MacCullock, posted 02-04-2007 6:52 PM AdminPD has replied

    jimfgerard
    Inactive Member


    Message 100 of 302 (382252)
    02-03-2007 10:23 PM
    Reply to: Message 1 by danny
    09-19-2006 6:26 AM


    I know many Christians insist that Noah's Flood actually happened even though there's tons of evidence it not only didn't but couldn't have possibly happened but that would be a-whole-nother long post in itself so instead I will cite a few passages from the Bible [listed at Bible: Science and History] making statements which are demonstrably wrong. In any event the chronology of animal creation isn't accurate to how science knows it went. Genesis I says sea creatures (including whales)and birds came a day before land animals which of course is total nonsense. Then again Genesis II says Adam came then animals then Eve which is also nonsense.
    The bible says that hares and coneys are unclean because they "chew the cud" but do not part the hoof. But hares and coneys are not ruminants and they do not "chew the cud." Leviticus 11:5-6
    Bats are birds to the biblical God. Leviticus 11:13, 19
    Four-legged fowls are abominations. Leviticus 11:20
    Be sure to watch out for those "other flying creeping things which have four feet." (I wish God wouldn't get so technical!) I guess he must mean four-legged insects. You'd think that since God made the insects, and so many of them (at least several million species), that he would know how many legs they have! Leviticus 11:23
    God's law for lepers: Get two birds. Kill one. Dip the live bird in the blood of the dead one. Sprinkle the blood on the leper seven times, and then let the blood-soaked bird fly off. Next find a lamb and kill it. Wipe some of its blood on the patient's right ear, thumb, and big toe. Sprinkle seven times with oil and wipe some of the oil on his right ear, thumb and big toe. Repeat. Finally kill a couple doves and offer one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. Leviticus14:2-52
    The Israelite population went from seventy (Exodus 1:5) to several million (over 600,000 adult males) Numbers 1:45-46 in just a few generations!
    God's cure for snakebite: a brass serpent on a pole. Numbers 21:8
    In a divine type of daylight savings time, God makes the sun stand still so that Joshua can get all his killing done before dark. Joshua 10:12-13
    "The earth ... shall be stable, that it be not moved." It doesn't spin on its axis or travel about the sun. 16:30 Chronicles
    The earth rests upon pillars and doesn't move (unless God gets angry or something). Job 9:6
    The earth is fixed and the sun travels about it. Job 9:7
    (there are scores and scores of Biblical descriptions of an unmoving Earth)
    According to the Bible, the moon produces its own light Isaiah 13:10
    God spread out the sky, which is a solid structure, hard and strong like a mirror. Job 37:18
    (there are also scores of verses describing the sky as a hard solid structure which contains the "waters" of Heaven - this was ancient Hebrew cosmology)
    "And the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den." A cockatrice is a serpent, hatched from a cock's egg, that can kill with a glance. They are rare nowadays Isaiah 11:8 & 14:29 & 59:5 & again in Jeremiah 8:17
    The Bible also mentions unicorns and dragons and sea serpents.
    But that's enough for now. The point being of course just because the Bible says something it doesn't follow it's a fact.
    Cheers
    Edited by jimfgerard, : No reason given.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by danny, posted 09-19-2006 6:26 AM danny has not replied

    arachnophilia
    Member (Idle past 1344 days)
    Posts: 9069
    From: god's waiting room
    Joined: 05-21-2004


    Message 101 of 302 (382270)
    02-03-2007 11:22 PM
    Reply to: Message 98 by MacCullock
    02-03-2007 1:13 PM


    Re: Read the Bible as obviously as possible
    When God discusses the six days specifically, He mentions nothing about creating any part of heaven or earth (Gen 1:31, Gen 2:1, Gen 2:4b, Exodus 20:11).
    on the contrary, heaven is created on day two. it did not exist before then. its function is to separate waters above from waters below. you could argue that land existed before day three, but for all intents and purposes, that's when it was created.
    "in the beginning" (or sometimes "at the start of...") is clearly just an openner.
    The word translated as "in the beginning" is used many other places for unspecified time introducing a new period of activity, such as in Jeremiah 28:1 and 49:34 about the beginning of some king's reigns (courtesy of BlueletterBible.org's Concordance "C" button).
    at least one newer translation renders as "at the beginning of." for instance, the new jps has "when god began to create..." the trick actually works because the first-person-singular present and past tenses of verbs are identical in hebrew.
    simply means "first" or "beginning" or "front." a starting place. literally, we can render the text to say "at the start of god creating the skies and the ground, the ground was without shape and empty... " etc.
    What every other Bible calls "the first day", the NASB calls "one day" not "the first" day.
    actually, it probably should say "first day." not because of anything you are getting at, but for another reason. the other five days you have bolded are literal translations of the hebrew names for the days of the week. sunday would be not , although the difference isn't important. you still start counting at "one."
    It is my assumption this should be read as if God is not referring to five specific consecutive 24 hour days, but rather five consecutive series of days, with each series (except the first) being of unmentioned length and each series represented by one day of the seven-day week God is trying to teach us about here (see Exodus 20:11 again).
    i don't see any reason to think that. each day strongly implies a length; 1 evening, and 1 morning. it's a week, plain and simple.
    The "and it was so" of Gen 1:24 means God accomplished that land creatures reproduced their kind in the most obvious way, requiring at least months of normal time like it does today.
    the animals are not reproducing here. the earth is producing them.
    I assume God calls the final day of the six "the sixth day" because that is when everything came to completion for His purposes. "The sixth" could also be specific because God has one specific day in mind representing the entire period, or because He actually did complete all that in one twenty-four hour day.
    the hebrew is identical to the other days, all of which lack the ha- prefix, or "the." in this case, "the" was most likely added by translators.
    The Hebrew word translated as "day" is "yom" which is a word for a period of activity or daylight that can be many days or years, or just an hour.
    no. has a few meanings, dependent on usage. there are four distinct usages of the word, all with specific meanings.
    1. the period of daylight, ~12 hrs. contrasted with night.
      quote:
      Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night...
    2. 1 day, 24 hrs. both daytime and nighttime.
      quote:
      Gen 1:5 ...And the evening and the morning were the first day.
    3. "year," idiomatic usage in genealogies.
      quote:
      Gen 5:4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
    4. specific idiom: "in the day." open-ended, referring to a larger sense of time, but specific and relating usually to causality. can be translated "when."
      quote:
      Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
    interchanging usages is unacceptable. they are distinct, and somewhat obvious. we use "day" the same way in modern english -- ironically probably due to biblical influence. the key is to not over-thinking it too much. it means what it plainly and obviously means on the first read-through.
    The word "yom" is also used in Gen 2:4 referring to the entire six yoms when God made heaven and earth complete.
    yamim is the plural of yom. and that's b'yom, "in the day that..." see above. it's actually a fluke that this is not a point of contradiction, as just about everything else in two stories contradict. they are two completely separate tales.
    WHY WAS IT DARK ON "ONE DAY"?
    If God created the sun in the beginning, why is it dark at the start of "one day"?
    the sun is not created until wednesday. it should be obvious from this blunder that you are not really paying very close attention to the text, which is incompatible with your view. the heavens were not created before day one, and the sun was not part of those heavens when they were created.
    Plainly the earth was constructed after the morning stars,
    "morning stars" seem to be mythological entities, something like the sons of god.
    then the sea burst forth,
    actually, it makes reference to god enclosing the sea. that's one day two, with the creation of heaven. heaven is a dome that confines the seas -- both the ones on the flat earth, and the one in the sky. knowing something about ancient near-eastern cosmology, and actually paying attention for it in genesis 1 really clears this whole bit up.
    THE FIRMAMENT.
    The usual interpretation of forming the firmament is simply that the thick clouds above the water separated from the seas. This formed the sky under clouds and above the sea, which could be described from the surface as like an upside down bowl (a partial sphere) in shape.
    the word implies strength, solidity, and flatness. it's a metal working term. the traditional sumerian idea is a copper dome, but many jewish sources have it as being created out of the waters themselves, in ice. some have glass.
    PLANTS BEFORE SUNLIGHT?
    Energy from sunlight reaches the surface of the earth even when it is cloudy, so there is no contradiction in claiming that land vegetation was produced after the day/night cycle was observable and before the sun itself could be discerned as a body in the heavens. Nor is there any need for a extra-scriptural miraculous source of light and energy God does not mention (a common sin of the YEC's).
    the sun is not formed before day four. make from that what you will. i cannot say where the light comes from, as the text does not say either. but wherever it is coming from is NOT the sun.
    WHEN ANIMAL LIFE BEGAN.
    As for when many kinds of animal life began, God is not specific. About sea and land creatures God is mentioning only those with the "breath of life" in them, presumably air-breathers
    "breath" is more idiomatic than that. the concept is closer to a "soul" or "spirit." when god breathes into us, we become alive. our souls are made of god's soul.
    This means God does not say when fish, bacteria, molluscs, insects, or earthworms began, nor whether they were created from nothing or more primitive types of creatures.
    quote:
    21 And God created the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that creepeth, wherewith the waters swarmed,
    quote:
    24 And God said: 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind.' And it was so.
    "creeping things" tend to include insects and whatnot.
    quote:
    Lev 11:21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
    Lev 11:22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind
    locusts, beetles, grasshoppers = (flying) creeping things.
    TOPIC - Please read Admin Message 102 before responding to this post.
    AdminPD
    Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.
    Edited by AdminPD, : Warning


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 98 by MacCullock, posted 02-03-2007 1:13 PM MacCullock has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 102 by AdminPD, posted 02-04-2007 9:01 AM arachnophilia has not replied
     Message 103 by MacCullock, posted 02-04-2007 12:00 PM arachnophilia has replied

    AdminPD
    Inactive Administrator


    Message 102 of 302 (382309)
    02-04-2007 9:01 AM
    Reply to: Message 101 by arachnophilia
    02-03-2007 11:22 PM


    Topic
    Arachnophilia and MacCullock,
    As much as I enjoy a good Hebrew duel, I don't see how this line of discussion furthers the point of the topic.
    OP writes:
    In general, the similarities between the biblical and scientific theories of universal evolution are uncanny. Are these similarities a product of my deranged imaginings and, if not, how did they come about.
    General Note: I ask that any responses to Message 98 or Message 101 clearly address and further the discussion of the topic as presented in Message 1.
    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 101 by arachnophilia, posted 02-03-2007 11:22 PM arachnophilia has not replied

    MacCullock
    Junior Member (Idle past 6262 days)
    Posts: 5
    From: Southern California, USA
    Joined: 02-01-2007


    Message 103 of 302 (382330)
    02-04-2007 12:00 PM
    Reply to: Message 101 by arachnophilia
    02-03-2007 11:22 PM


    Re: Read the Bible as obviously as possible
    arachnophilia writes:
    on the contrary, heaven is created on day two. it did not exist before then. its function is to separate waters above from waters below. you could argue that land existed before day three, but for all intents and purposes, that's when it was created.
    Thank you, arachnophilia, for bringing up an aspect of understanding Genesis which YEC's typically get wrong. My goal is to get to an "obvious" interpretation of Genesis one which is informed by what God's creation has told us through science (that is what Psalm 19:1-11 means if you truly get it into your heart)
    What is between the waters above and below was MADE on the second day from pre-existing clouds and atmosphere. If you have a cite saying something was "created" (other than the three kinds of living things) during the six days please show it to us. Please remember "create", at least in Genesis' early chapters is always a translation of the Hebrew "bara" which means a divine creation from nothing.
    Your disagreement may be about what "heaven" means in Genesis 1:1. The Hebrew "twot" can mean either the sky or the visible universe as this concordance ref shows.
    If that is your disagreement, it is probably based upon the fact that in Gen 1:8 God does name what He made on the second day the same as what He creates in the beginning, but as always with Hebrew the context is VERY significant. For those who may not know, Biblical Hebrew has EXTREMELY few words, and it is more of a struggle than one might expect to get ONE "obvious" translation which makes sense. That struggle is surely a deliberate part of God's plan, since God not only commands us to be discerning, but to be deep into understanding what He says. I believe that is why He has personally confirmed so many scriptures to me, because that is what I try to do. One such example was Proverbs 30:5-6 by radio while understanding YEC mistakes was on my mind (for better examples, see my blog at Defend Others as Yourself) [ed 02-04].
    The context here includes the fact that Hebrew term "the heavens and the earth" is a dualism (like "good and evil", "body and soul", or "day and night") always used to mean the entire universe [ed 02-04]. If that is what the Bible translators rely on, it would make sense if Gen 1:1 "heaven" is always translated as non-earth astronomical bodies, and Gen 1:8 "heaven" modified by "firmament" is always translated as sky.
    Here is BlueLetterBible.org for Gen 1. By clicking the "C" for 1:1, then on "created" you can see what is "divinely created from nothing" (Hebrew bara) in the beginning is different from what is made from existing things (Hebrew asah) in Gen 1:7, because the word for firmament, expanse, or sky modifies it. I think of this as God creating what is ABOVE the sky from nothing in 1:1 and making the sky itself from existing clouds and atmosphere in Gen 1:7. Can there be any other obvious interpretation of this? It seems doubtful such other obvious translation would be consistent with what God's creation has told us through science. Please help us out here.
    Just for good measure, here is how to see every major English translation for Gen 1:1-9 at BibleGateway.com. I checked the thing created from nothing in 1:1 versus the thing made from clouds and atmosphere in Gen 1:7. In every case the translators say the thing made on day two differs from what is created in the beginning. To check this out, all you have to do is change that selection bar at the top and click update to verify what I am saying. The Bible versions I checked were: NIV, NASB, NLT, KJV, ESV, NKJV, ASV, NLV, and HCSB. Those are the only versions listed I have any familiarity with and they all agreed what is created in the beginning differs from what is made on day two.
    Here are some better expressed words from a better authority supporting that creation of astronomical bodies in the beginning is distinct from making the sky on the second day.
    Dr Richard M. Davidson writes:
    If "heaven and earth" refers to the whole universe, this "beginning" (at least for part of the "heavens") must have been before the first day of earth's creation week, since the "sons of God" were already created and sing for joy when the foundations of the earth are laid (Job 38:7).
    "Heavens and earth" equal the globe (earth) and the surrounding heavenly spheres, (possibly only the atmosphere and solar system, but more probably includes the whole material universe....
    if Genesis 1 begins with only a title or summary, then verse 2 contradicts verse 1. God creates the earth (verse 1), but the earth pre-exists creation (verse 2). This interpretation simply cannot explain the reference to the existence of the earth already in verse 2....
    Dr Richard M Davidson, Professor of Old Testament Interpretation, Andrews University, MDiv, PhD. Quotes found here [ed 02-04].
    If you have a source which contradicts every major version of the Bible on what happened day two, please tell us what it might be. I do strongly advise you to take Job 38:2-3 and Revelation 22:18 seriously before you reply.
    This response also answers your assertions about WHY WAS IT DARK ON ONE DAY?, and PLANTS BEFORE SUNLIGHT?. In Gen 1:1 God creates the astronomical bodies, which has to include the sun if nothing else. In Gen 1:14-18 on the fourth day, God makes complete His purposes for already existing sun, moon, and stars. Asserting He "created" them then is simply adding to Scriptures what you and the Young Earth Creationists want them to say. [ed 02-04]
    Edited by MacCullock, : Keeping to the thread topic.
    Edited by MacCullock, : ed 02-04 re: heaven and earth dualism, Proverbs 30:5-6 by radio, Dr Davidson quote, and that this responds to two other assertions.

    My child, pay attention to what I say. Listen carefully to my words. Don’t lose sight of them. Let them penetrate deep into your heart, for they bring life to those who find them, and healing to their whole body. Proverbs 4:20-22, NLT
    Blog: DefendOthers.blogspot.com The Dead Sea Scrolls in San Diego 2007! www.SDScrolls.org

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 101 by arachnophilia, posted 02-03-2007 11:22 PM arachnophilia has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 104 by MacCullock, posted 02-04-2007 12:15 PM MacCullock has not replied
     Message 107 by doctrbill, posted 02-04-2007 9:58 PM MacCullock has not replied
     Message 108 by arachnophilia, posted 02-04-2007 11:08 PM MacCullock has not replied

    MacCullock
    Junior Member (Idle past 6262 days)
    Posts: 5
    From: Southern California, USA
    Joined: 02-01-2007


    Message 104 of 302 (382337)
    02-04-2007 12:15 PM
    Reply to: Message 103 by MacCullock
    02-04-2007 12:00 PM


    Re: Read the Bible as obviously as possible
    please delete this. I have already edited the above to show how it relates to the thread topic.
    Thank you admins all for what you do. You are a big part of what makes this forum so valuable!
    Edited by MacCullock, : No reason given.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 103 by MacCullock, posted 02-04-2007 12:00 PM MacCullock has not replied

    MacCullock
    Junior Member (Idle past 6262 days)
    Posts: 5
    From: Southern California, USA
    Joined: 02-01-2007


    Message 105 of 302 (382449)
    02-04-2007 6:52 PM
    Reply to: Message 99 by AdminPD
    02-03-2007 1:35 PM


    Re: Welcome to EvC
    Dear AdminPD, you are correct that I meant to respond to danny's original post. Is there a way to correct my own posting in that regard? It does not show as a message responding to his post. Thank you!

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 99 by AdminPD, posted 02-03-2007 1:35 PM AdminPD has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 106 by AdminPD, posted 02-04-2007 9:00 PM MacCullock has not replied

    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024