|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The Unacknowledged Accuracy of Genesis 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3688 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: You are correct - at least by actual reference to its textual context. The sun was created in the beginning opening verse [heavens/galaxies]; the 4th day only refers to 'LUMINOSITY' - the texts allow no other reading, catering only to SIGNS [Astronomy] and omens [astrology]. The sun/stars do not emit luminosity until after an embryotic phase is successfully passed, and some stars do not achieve this status. Thus the earth recieved luminosity on the 4th 'cosmic day' [obviously, a non-24 hour day w/o the luminosity]. The 'days' in chapter 1 are thus epochs of time. The Genesis calendar, which is the oldest and most accurate in existence [able to predict a sunset a 100,000 years in advance, and accurate to a billionth of a sec]correctly begins with the advent of humans, namely the 5766 years refers from Adam to now. One must pause and consider what is being said via deep scientific and logical contemplation, and not be swayed by the decpetively simple biblical texts - these are in a mode which must cater to all generations of mankind. Genesis is also correct in placing 'Light' as the first entity - this is a pre-sun light [the stars could not produce light if it was not pre-existing of the stars]. The 'LET THERE BE LIGHT' is not particularly a conflict with the BBT, and also doubles up as a brilliant metaphor in its pre-sun light application.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 755 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
The Genesis calendar, which is the oldest and most accurate in existence (able to predict a sunset a 100,000 years in advance, and accurate to a billionth of a sec) What total nonsense! Balderdash! Where did this silliness even come from? Edited by Coragyps, : No reason given. Edited by Coragyps, : fix stuff....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminCoragyps Inactive Member |
Hi, Joseph! You might consider using something other than square brackets for parentheses - they are part of the dBCode that this board uses, and might result in some peculiar-looking posts. Try () or {} instead.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3688 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
I will - cease using . Thanks
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3688 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Nothing of the sort. You still have to show a calendar older than 5766 years. That the genesis calendar is the most accurate - by a very far scale, is not in dispute anywhere. It is quite a mysterious thing - the only calendar based on the solar, lunar and earthly movements. Examing it closer, there is no other reading of it of a spherical earth - pre-dating Galelio by 3000 years! The christian gregorian and the islamic calendars are not scientific but based on beliefs. Allow me to give you an example of this calendar's exactness - in relation to its texts spread over five books, containing 100s of 1000s of dates in its verses and para's - which are all 100% synchrosized with each other - an amazing feat. In the book of Exodus, it says The ten Commandments were handed down on a 'Saturday': 'Remember *THIS* day as the Sabaath'/Ex - namely, this day meaning today is the Sabbath. If you calculate all the dates and follow this to day # 1 in the genesis calendar - it stacks up! The same applies to ALL dates pervasive in the OT. This is hardly bolderdash!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
IAmJoseph writes: That the genesis calendar is the most accurate - by a very far scale, is not in dispute anywhere. It's in dispute here, sonny. By definition, a "calendar" that mentions only days can not possibly have a resolution of billionths of a second. Nor can it predict anything. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 755 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Examing it closer, there is no other reading of it of a spherical earth - You're kidding, right? "Isa 40:22It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:" Edited by Coragyps, : goofy things happening.....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gigawatts Junior Member (Idle past 6135 days) Posts: 10 From: Nassau, Bahamas Joined: |
Hi Danny,
In response to Brian's question, you wrote: "The mainstream scientific views on universal evolution are common knowledge. Many science textbooks contain it. If in doubt I refer you to your local library.If you get a chance could you please critique my interpretation of the passage in Genesis 1 regarding the so-called creation of atmosphere" Are you honestly trying to justify the validity of evolution by claiming it's "common knowledge" and that "many science textbooks contain it"? Personally, I am in serious doubt of macro-evolution through its repeated use of the phrase "millions and millions of years" to magically explain a theory that takes twice as much faith to believe than the literal translation of Genesis. If you truly believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God, I recommend that you stop trying to bend His teaching to fit the lies that today's society would have you believe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Hi Giga and welcome.
The subject is the Creation Myth from Genesis 1 and that is simply wrong, false, refuted, incorrect, absurd and teaching stuff like that is to simply impose a Cult of Ignorance on our children. Those who try to pretend that the Creation Myths in Genesis are literally true is, in the words of over 10,000 US Christian Clergy, "is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children." If you truly believe the Bible is the Word of God, it is time to stop preaching the lies that are Biblical Creationism. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3688 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: That link ('here') does'nt work. Everything, even God, can be made in dispute - all it takes is one person and one post on the net. There is however no dispute about the predictability factor of the OT calendar. I have posted here the intergrated exactness of all numerical entries and dates in the OT, and that the listings of pages of generation names are scientifically authentic, so I won't repeat it; but there is great misinfo and misrep of the OT upon a hapless world audience, and this accounts for the surprise responses. There is a walt disney presentation of the OT stories promoted by European christianity (Isaac is portrayed as an 8 year child offered for sacrifice: actually Isaac was 37 years old!). The OT calendar's purpose was primarilly to observe the Sabaath sunset and sunrise, and the festivals mandated in the OT - which are seasonal and harvest oriented ('In the first harvest month' etc). The calendar is thus listed in the beginning of the book of genesis - to enable the observence of the laws which follow it throughout the five books. While you are right there are no hour and second breakdowns (clocks were not yet discovered), the day is devided in four sections (morning, evening, sunrise, sunset), and there are provisions for determining the sunrise and sunsets - that these are accurate to a fraction of a second was identified recently by scientists, and it is deemed the world's most accurate calendar: I can post you more affirmations of this than what you term as 'disputed'. I never made it up. This calendar is actively used today, and you can buy a future 10 year addition which lists the exact times of sunsets and sunrises in all parts of the world.
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3688 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: There is no deficiency in those writings, except they are written in ancient form, stretching the boundaries for its times. "that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain" today aligns with the expanding galaxies ('stretcheth'). That the term 'dust' is used for life's emergence and return, can be aligned with base particles of matter. There is no better way to express such over 3000 years ago - it requires relative input.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3688 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Which part of genesis 1 is myth? I agree it is not school science - education has to be expressed empirically, in keeping with our understandings derived via science and maths. There are statutes and given constants in Genesis 1 - science has to explain them in empirical terms.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
All of Genesis 1 is myth. It is a poetic and allegorical attempt to explain relationships.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3688 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: The calendar is not a myth, nor are the list of chronological species and the paleontological names sited therein. That light is the first entiity, and the seed pivotal in repro and adaptation, are not myths but bona fide alternatives to any other premise. Same with the premise of dual-gendered life origins. These premises are the only ones being debated in science forums today - which means they are debatable scientific premises, and not myth. Genesis does not make blatantly unvindicated postulations - it does not say that life exists or does not exist on the moon, while its bold dating of speech endowed humans have not been over-turned. Creationism and Monotheism are also not myth - both stand tody as challenging, and the swing of science is inclined with genesis - namely newly emerging controversial theories such as MV and ID: 'A COMPLEXITY CANNOT RESULT FROM A RANDOM' - Roger Primrose, confirmed atheist, cosmologist and author of MultiVerse.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The calendar is not a myth, nor are the list of chronological species and the paleontological names sited therein. Do any of you even read the Bible? There is no calendar in Genesis 1. The order and nature of creation in Genesis 1 is incorrect, both physically and biologically. Genesis 1 is simply myth. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024