|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The Unacknowledged Accuracy of Genesis 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPD Inactive Administrator |
All you can do is edit the post and note at the beginning that it is to Danny.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
doctrbill Member (Idle past 2793 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
MacCullock writes: What is between the waters above and below was MADE on the second day from pre-existing clouds and atmosphere. The scripture doesn't mention what, if anything, was created between the waters on the second day, but it does say that the "firmament" was made on that day. Firmament is a Latin word, not an English word. In English we call it a 'dome,' as some Bible translators like to do. The "firmament" dome was created for the same reason as the Astro Dome: to keep the ground dry under it, and to hold up the big lights. This is what you get from Genesis when you actually read the Bible.
Please remember "create", at least in Genesis' early chapters is always a translation of the Hebrew "bara" which means a divine creation from nothing. NO. IT DOESN'T. Silly Boy! From the very sources which you cite: bara means "TO CUT, TO CARVE OUT, TO FORM BY CUTTING" and to the best of my knowledge, you can't cut "nothing." Besides, Saint Peter makes it clear that the universe was made from water.
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. You seem to have gone off half cocked here, and I'm going to let the humorous detail of your mis-reference slide, but seriously man, Heaven is defined at verse 8. "And God called the firmament Heaven." What more do you need in the way of "Obvious." Sure, the region between the ground and the dome is also called 'heaven,' and the word 'heaven' is used metaphorically of righteous government, but aside from those permutations there is no reason to believe that the author(s) describe anything like our concept of earth and space. In your post you cite and link to Psalm 91; and I am wondering if you have actually considered the implication of verse 6: quote: Lovely poetry but it speaks to a geocentric view of the universe. I am ever amazed at the complex mental gymnastics required to deny the simple words and obvious imagery of Genesis Chapter One. Beginning at verse one the believer is taught to ignore the Bronze Age philosopy revealed there and to imagine it rather: Space Age science. I can almost remember what it was like to be a creationist.It is a terrible feeling. A feeling of being outgunned. A feeling of ignorance. And where was God ? Theology is the science of Dominion. - - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
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 the problem i see with this is rather obvious. using science to reinterpret genesis as backing science -- "unacknowledged accuracy" etc -- is circular. genesis means what it means, regardless of any relationship to reality. if it backs up what we know today, you can argue that it is accurate. if it does not, you can't simply change it around so that it is. that's not honest.
What is between the waters above and below was MADE on the second day from pre-existing clouds and atmosphere. that's not what the text says. you can't say that these verses are talking about a DIFFERENT heaven, as your view would insist.
quote: quote: the first and the second are clearly the same -- and the creation of the earth is described on the next day. this makes your interpretation untennable.
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. as for made vs created, they are very close to synonymous. "created" can mean ex-nihilo, or is generally interpretted that way, yes. really, they refer to different foci of attention. "made" emphasizes physical creation (generally by hand), and "created" emphasizes intellectual design. genesis 1 is a more lofty idea of god, genesis 2 portrays him as a hands-on kind of guy. see:
quote: same basic idea, different emphasis. this is really a common oec-gap-theorist canard, and one that really makes little sense in ANY language. the translation is a good one: the reflect the same emphasis and connotation in english, and are NOT mutually exclusive. again, you're over thinking it -- it means the same in english. please see this thread.
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. "twot" stands for theological wordbook of the old testament. it's a bible dictionary. conversely, a concordance is NOT a dictionary and should never be used as one. entries reflecting translations are not usage-specific, and can be misleading for people inexperienced with the language. in any case, the hebrew word is shamim, which is literally derived from the word for "waters," mayim. i trust you can see the similarity there, and this is to be expected. heaven is the object that divides the waters.
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, this is highly inaccurate. biblical hebrew has MANY words. it does not have as many as english, because it did not take in as many words from as many other languages, but the vocabulary is quite large. as i point out to buzsaw somewhat recently, they have at least four words for "but, nevertheless, although," etc. people who make points about context when they have already shown that they know nothing about context or even grammar are generally trying to distort meaning by interchanging usages. there is no good textual reason to assume that one "heaven" and the other "heaven" are any different. just read it plainly, in english. the structure makes sense as it is. don't mess about in hebrew unless you actually know some.
and it is more of a struggle than one might expect to get ONE "obvious" translation which makes sense. there are two possible renderings of genesis 1:1.
quote: because the third person singular verb cases are the same for past and present tense, we can thus render the verse as either:
quote: or:
quote: that's the ambiguity of the translation there. and that's the extent of it. one of the possible translations refutes your idea. the other isn't exactly a strong case for it.
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. when you pretend that the bible is sufficiently vague, it's easy to confirm just about anything. this is what i suspect you are attempting to do, as is anyone who talks about "unacknowledged accuracy" of genesis 1. clearly, the text is NOT accurate, and talking about vagueries and difficulties in translations is one way to disguise that inaccuracy. but suppose for a second that you speak biblical hebrew, and live in 600 bce jerusalem. is there any difficulty in translation? no, there is not. you know what it means. the bible is NOT vague. it's actually quite specific -- that "context" you talked about above is actually one of the things that help make it so. i can't tell you how many fundamentalist quotemines are defeated by context that limits or specifies a verse they have ripped out of the text.
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. the levantine cosmology consisted of a flat earth, and a domed sky. that was the entire universe. to read anything else is anachronistic. and yes, "heaven and earth" is a common dualism. it represents the entire universe because, to the ancient hebrews, all they knew of the universe as "sky" and "ground." yet they both have to be created, don't they? "day and night" is another common dualism, as you mention. day is created, isn't it? and its creation defines night. similar, heaven is created, and its creation allows the definition of land.
Here is BlueLetterBible.org for Gen 1. By clicking the "C" for 1:1, tell me from my above translation whether or not you think this argument should impress me.
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. there is only water above the sky.
Can there be any other obvious interpretation of this? yes. the first verse is an introduction, or dependent clause, depending on how you parse the grammar. it merely signifies that this is the beginning of god's creative act. there is simply no logical reason to separate this verse from the rest of the text.
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. rather, it would be surprising if it WAS consistent. it's a 2600 year old story, strongly reminiscent of the babylonian creation myth, and every other creation myth in the levantine and sumerian regions of the world. if your generalized version of it is correct, so is the enuma elish. they generalize about the same way, only one has seven gods where the other has one.
Just for good measure, here is how to see every major English translation for Gen 1:1-9 at BibleGateway.com. does it look like i need translations? and it's not every major translation. there are a number that are still under copyright. for instance, the new jps i mentioned above.
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. that's certainly news to me. it hasn't been in ANY translation i've ever read, and it's NOT in the hebrew.
quote: what an exceptionally narrow-minded reading! can't "the beginning" be the entire creation week? i think it can! in fact, that word is the title for the book, "b'reishit" or "in the beginning" or "genesis" if you will. the whole book is "in the beginning." it is the origins of the hebrew faith.
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. your source and your logic contradict rational sense, and a reasonable reading of the text, regardless of translation. but just for kicks, here's that new jps:
quote: etc. i believe i've already shown why this translation is acceptable, though i would personally render it a little more literally (as above).
Revelation 22:18 i don't take kindly to threats. i counter your revelation with deuteronomy 12:32 and 13:1-whatever. and i am not adding anything to the text -- you are. you are inserting a entirely distinct creation where the text describes none. why have a "vague" reference to a previous creation that was not described? the fact that this creation is described totally refutes your point. why not start with noah? god un-creates everything (except heaven) in chapter 6 and 7, and returns the planet to the condition it was in genesis 1:2. why not start there? because the text wants to start "in the beginning." the point of this text and its placement is to be the beginning.
This response also answers your assertions about WHY WAS IT DARK ON ONE DAY?, no, it does not. not at all. if heaven existed, and there was a sun, why WAS it dark? why did light have to be created if it already existed? where does the sun exist before it was "made" and before the place it exists is "made?" how is something "created" and then "made" at some point afterwards? your view does not make a lick of sense.
and PLANTS BEFORE SUNLIGHT? again, saying there was a sun directly contradicts the text. your interpretation is anti-textual, and therefore wrong. the text CANNOT be accurate if we have to ignore what it says to make it so.
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] you see this word in verse 14? . yehey. literally, "be!" it is an emphatic command to come into existance, and ALWAYS associated with creation. if god says tells something to come into existance, and to exist in a certain place when it already does, god is about as powerful as the dog trainer who tells his sleeping dog "play dead." Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
The "firmament" dome was created for the same reason as the Astro Dome: to keep the ground dry under it, and to hold up the big lights. This is what you get from Genesis when you actually read the Bible. a good point.
From the very sources which you cite: bara means "TO CUT, TO CARVE OUT, TO FORM BY CUTTING" and to the best of my knowledge, you can't cut "nothing." creatio-ex-nihilo is basically not ever once described in the bible. the only ARGUABLE instance is in genesis 1:1. and that's arguable. clearly, water seems to pre-exist (as you mention). the "cutting" is because god creates by means of division. he sorts things into creations by separate one thing from another in the primordial chaos. you'll find that almost all of god's creation is separation: light from dark, day from night, land from water, etc. dualism is strewn throughout the chapter, everything created with its opposite.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
doctrbill Member (Idle past 2793 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
Hi Arach,
Thanks for the info. Hope you don't mind my jumping in on that one, but then I figured there was plenty of nonsense to keep a number of us busy. Always a pleasure watching you work. Theology is the science of Dominion. - - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
oh no, of course. your additions are always informative. i highly suspect that you know a great deal more about theology and the text than i do, and it's always a pleasure to learn new things.
i tend to get bogged down in the details, and miss the obvious forest for the trees. your observation is much more concise and to the point. Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
doctrbill Member (Idle past 2793 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
Thank you for the kind words.
It feels like flattery, - but then - I know it true. Seriously though, I defer to and often rely upon your knowledge of Hebrew. As for my knowledge of theology and the text - that comes in part from a little formal education and a lot of hitting the books. I could wish for another lifetime to spend in pursuit of my biblical hobby.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
danny Inactive Junior Member |
Doctrbill, as I understand it, you are saying that the firmament can be equated with the edge of the universe, it is the expanse (and expansion (?) of the universe). In my own interpretation of the verse "God made the firmament, and separated the water under the firmament from the water above it" I have asked the question - How can there be water 'above' the firmament? To me this indicates something that stands outside the universe. I have figured that the only possible way for this to occur is if something existed BEFORE the universe was created, only then can it be said to be outside or 'above' the firmament. Genesis is quite specific that there was indeed such a situation - "The earth was a vast waste, darkness covered the deep, and the spirit of God hovered over the surface of the water." Here we are specifically told that there were at least two elememts that existed before the creation of the universe - the spirit of God and the water (this must surely be a reference to the waters 'above' the firmament.)
The next step of pondering the above verse was asking - How can the firmament 'separate' the waters above the firmament from the waters below? I view the waters below the firmament as the energy that initially poured into the newly created universe (although I'm not sure whether the Hebrew word for water can be used in this sense), whereas the waters above the firmament must be viewed as some kind of energy that could exist in a state where there was no physical space. As mentioned earlier I view the firmament, not only as the expanse of the universe but also it's expansion. When the universe was first created there were only two elements at play, the initial energy and expansion. As the universe expanded it cooled, as it cooled the initial energy changed 'forms' to make sub-atomic particles, then atoms, then the first elements (hydrogen etc), then gases, liquids, solids etc and on and on until we have todays visible universe. So, the firmament (expansion) separates the waters (various 'forms' of energy) by cooling the universe down as it expands. Edited by danny, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
danny Inactive Junior Member |
The reason I originally posted this thread was to demonstrate that an uncanny resemblence between Genesis 1 and, what I understand to be, the conventional scientific view of 'creation', can been shown to exist IF YOU LOOK AT THINGS IN A CERTAIN WAY. The justification for "playing along" with this lies in the fact that if Genesis 1 is just some made up guess by some sophisticated savages thousands of years ago then by rights it should have absolutely nothing in common with modern day science. Think about this for a minute. Even if they were bizarrely lucky with there guesses there should still be little resemblence between the two.
The fact of the matter is this though - there are some incredible parallels between the two accounts. My proposal is this - ignoring what you think or what your bias is, let us collectively try to construct an interpretation of Genesis 1 that fits in with science. Lets just do this for a laugh if you really need a reason, but lets stop bickering over this word and that word. It is my belief that if even a little effort is put in something quite interesting will emerge. Even if you're a hard-core scientist (especially if you are), help us out as we find the best interpretation we can.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
It could have some similarities in broad outlien even if read as intended. If one is prepared to stretch the text and rewrite the order of events then of course it is possible to create more "similarities". See Message 19. I see nothing significant in "similarities" of your creation, which are not found in Genesis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
danny Inactive Junior Member |
Hi PaulK, as you say, there do indeed seem to be some similarities between the two accounts and obviously some insurmountable obstacles. What I am proposing is to highlight these similarities and offer various interpretations for the remaining data that seem reasonable, even if not 'rigorous'(check out my interpretation of Day 4 in the very first post - that it refers to Atmosphere and not Sun, Moon etc). Obviously there will be holes left, right and centre but I would view this as an exercise in creative thinking more than anything else. I must stress that I have no idealogical axe to grind, I'm not reigious but I'm not scientific either. It would be nice to have people from disparate backgrounds working together rather than being at each others throats and I do believe that some interesting results will be achieved.
Just to get the ball rolling - what do you think are the significant similarities between the two accounts?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I said "could have" - I don't think that there are any similarities that require any special knowledge. And yes I did read your ideas about "atmosphere" and they don't make any sense. Not only does it require an extremely dubious reading, it's obviously out of order because plants need atmosphere (not to mention the fact that the plants are not restricted to early plants, but include flowering plants which come later than the first birds, early mammals and much later than "creeping things").
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
danny Inactive Junior Member |
So much for getting into the spirit of things - I'll try and lay down a general framework, again, just for kicks.
Let there be light - the Big Bang. This seems like a reasonable similarity, if you know what I mean. The Firmament - now I'll need confirmation of this because I don't know Hebrew. Can the Hebrew word for Firmament mean both the expanse of the universe AND it's expansion. I have the Oxford Collins Holy Bible Concordance which relates the word 'expansion' to Firmament. If this is the case then we have a pretty good guess as to the intial conditions of the universe - the energy (light) and the expansion. Now the rest of the chapter deals with the creation of pretty much everything else stage by stage. Why not all at once? Why not, God just clicks its fingers and Wham!, everything is as it is? Why would the compilers of Gen 1 envision it was done in this 'evolutionary' way, with the simplest forms of life coming first and then becoming increasingly more complex? In the same concordance it says that life was "brought forth" from the seas. This too is a bizarrely good guess. Why would the same compilers imagine a camel was "brought forth" from the seas? Why not just created like everything else? There are obvious contradictions in the whole set up (thanks PaulK for running straight to them) but, just for kicks, lets examine the similarities rather than the differences. It would make a change from the constant, petty bickering that seems to be the lifeblood of threads like this one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote:This is a discussion site. If you don't want any criticisms then you are in the wrong place. quote: But if you look at it in context it is far less reasonable. There appears to be water. The light is daylight and the dark form which it is separated is night.
quote:My understanding is that it etymologically relates to being "hammered out". And anyway the firmamaent refers to something which divides two lots of water. Does that really make sense if it is the expansion of the universe ? quote: You should rather ask why a true evolutionary account is missing. As I point out in Message 19 the Genesis account does group many things that appeared over a very long period of time into a single day. When the actual histories overlap.
quote:That seems to be only true of sea creatures and maybe birds. If we're going to look at simliarities then at least look at real similarities. Not ones which are based on wishful thinking and ignoring the context. {ABE} If you only want to discuss similarities I suggest that you find clear, definite similarities that can't be successfully rebutted.I don't thnk that you will find anything of significance. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
danny Inactive Junior Member |
There's nothing wrong with criticism Paul, everythings OK. I just wanted a light-hearted exercise in wordplay and the possibilities of interpretation. A bit of fun.
In response to your list of criticisms: We can't really regard the 'days' of creation as actual days (I'm sure you can figure out why) so why don't we substitute words like 'phases' or 'stages' instead of days (I'm sure this seems highly unreasonable). As for the waters and the firmament, check out my bizarre interpretation given in message #113. You made a very good point about things being grouped together. Obviously, in the evolutionary sense, vegetation (even in the form of blue-green algae) comes first (mind you, there was no mention of bacteria, amino acids or any pre-biotic systems) and maybe we can say that even though some plant-life (flowering plants for example) come later in the evolutionary sense, they are all put in the same group (ie: vegetation), call it 'poetic license' if you will. And I think you'll find (but correct me if I'm wrong) that the animals "brought forth" from the sea include "cattle, creeping things and wild animals". I await your forthcoming critique with trepidation.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024