|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The Unacknowledged Accuracy of Genesis 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
IamJoseph writes: There is however no dispute about the predictability factor of the OT calendar. We're talking about Genesis 1 here. There simply is no "calendar" in Genesis 1.
I can post you more affirmations of this than what you term as 'disputed'. You haven't posted anything resembling an "affirmation" yet. All you've posted is assertions. You could start by showing us the verses in Genesis 1 that describe a calendar accurate to a billionth of a second. Then you could continue by showing us predictions it made 100,000 years in advance. Then, for an encore, you could explain to us how predictions 100,000 years in the future - made 6000 years in the past - can be termed "accurate". Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3689 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: The calendar is in Genesis, following after ch 1. The order of creation and/or the universe is correct and a most comprehensive listing. It starts with Light, and each step of creation involves an immediate 'SEPARATION' factor (creation & separation of light/darkness, water/earth, day/night/male/female, etc). This says all bears a factor of connectivity (intergration), while all also incurs a separation treshold which cannot be surpassed. It is arguably the only explanation why we have never encountered any knowledge of the unseen or the origins of anything whatsoever. There is no such thing as a 'SINGULARITY'. Edited by IamJoseph, : spell
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The calendar is in Genesis, following after ch 1. Even if true, it is irrelevant to the Genesis Creation Myth in Genesis 1.
The order of creation and/or the universe is correct and a most comprehensive listing. Uhhhhhhh, No, actually. It is incorrect. You cannot have an Earth before a sun. The moon does not provide light. The earth was never covered with water. Vegetation did not first appear on land. The first plants were neither seed bearing nor fruit. It is impossible for there have to have been vegetation before the sun. I could keep on, but even just one of the items is enough to falsify the Creation story found in Genesis 1. It is just a myth. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3689 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: The accuracy is determined not in genesis, but by scientists. The calendar is in genesis but not in v 1, which is limited to an over-view of creation. A calendar is applicable to 'mankind's emergence and time-dependent laws', thus it is listed appropriately.
quote: No, I never said predictions were made 100k years in advance, but that a sunset can be predicted 100k years in advance. I posted some links on this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3689 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Genesis says the universe was created in Verse one, and the sun and moon luminocity appeared later. The aspect of vegetation is a good point, but you are incorrect here. Genesis does not say vegetation grew, but that the earth was 'static' before luminosity ('Now nothing grew....then a mist appeared and the rains fell'/Gen). So we have the ingredients in place, but these were static (not 'dynamic') - until a specific ignition phase. There is no alternative to this process as listed: the sun sustains, but does not produce, life - the reason we do not see life on the moon or anyplace else. The aspect of the moon reflecting the sun's light does not negate the moon being a light unto earth for the night time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
IamJoseph writes: I never said predictions were made 100k years in advance, but that a sunset can be predicted 100k years in advance. That doesn't answer the question. How can you claim "accuracy" for 100,000 year predictions - of a sunset or anything else - if the calendar itself is only 6000 years old? What's the relevance anyway? Any idiot can predict that there will be a sunset 100,000 years from now. How does that relate to the "unacknowledged accuracy of Genesis 1"? And I'm still waiting for the chapter and verse where it talks about billionths of a second. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3689 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: It does answer the Q, and w/o the contradiction you impose on it. A 6000 year document can give a formular or premise which can be used to measure time - back or front. The genesis calendar is thus very accurate, incorporating the fluctuating movements and inclinations of the bodies which effect time on the earth and the seasonal change patterns and sea levels pursuent to full moon events - noted in Genesis. We do the same with measuring radiation residue to estimate the universe emergence datings. This calendar does incorporate some mysterious factors, when it's introduced spacetime is considered: it lists periods 2500 years prior to Moses, with authentic and contemporanous data with almost unacceptable/unaccountable veracity. Try naming your twice removed past generation's family tree, with names, places, dob's and dod's - and it becomes a point of astonishment: it is not possible even with today's computerised archiving facilities.
quote: I can get you the calendar in Genesis, which is common knowledge, but not the billion second demand: seconds were not discovered yet, remember? Edited by IamJoseph, : spelling
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2285 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 7.4 |
Try naming your twice removed past generation's family tree
The Lord of the Rings has appendices with quite extensive geneaologies, are they the truth?
Try naming your twice removed past generation's family tree, with names, places, dob's and dod's - and it becomes a point of astonishment: it is not possible even with today's computerised archiving facilities.
Shit I have my family tree traced all the way back to Odin the Allfather, the geneologies presented in christian mythology are nothing special. Just a monkey in a long line of kings. If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3689 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: You verify my point. Names are scientifically provable of its historical authenticity of time and place, and I doubt if Rings can pass such a test. The name Abram applies to a pre-canaan spacetime, while the name Abraham/Avraham/Ibrahim is post-Abraham. This makes the significance of listing pages of generation names, after Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, Jacob, Esau and a host of other key figures - at first appearing as superflous - but in fact one of the strongest proofs of ancient writings' veracity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2285 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 7.4 |
Names are scientifically provable of its historical authenticity of time and place
So you're saying that because the names used are correct for the period and area these named people actually existed?
but in fact one of the strongest proofs of ancient writings' veracity.
How so? The names may be correct for the time and area but how does that prove that the writing is true? If I write a story about england in the 1500s and all the character names are correct for that time period and area does that mean that these people actually existed? Does my story become fact just because I used the right names? Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given. Just a monkey in a long line of kings. If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3689 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Ancient names, correct of its spacetime, is the single most commonly used factor in archeological determinations; next up is writing styles. However, these are not the only factors applying with genesis - though those would be sufficient. The diets of the ancient egyptians, 3,500 years ago - are authentic, as are all secofically mentioned names, dates, places and historical data. Excepting for unexplainable miracles - all its historical content is historically valid. The content of the writings are thus true - the writings being true to its spacetime are also tru - this is an early, square design hebrew without vowels - in keeping of its datings. You may know - a bona fide diary is accepted evidence in a court hearing - even a murder trial!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jaderis Member (Idle past 3447 days) Posts: 622 From: NY,NY Joined: |
Names are scientifically provable of its historical authenticity of time and place, and I doubt if Rings can pass such a test. The name Abram applies to a pre-canaan spacetime, while the name Abraham/Avraham/Ibrahim is post-Abraham. This makes the significance of listing pages of generation names, after Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, Jacob, Esau and a host of other key figures - at first appearing as superflous - but in fact one of the strongest proofs of ancient writings' veracity. All this proves is that the people propogating the myths lived in a specific area and time. The Grecian epic poems Iliad and Odyssey and the comprehensive mythologies in the Bibliotheca describe real places and use names and language consistent with the time it was written down (and are dated to well before the first known texts of the Old Testament) and may very well have some basis in actual history (this is as highly debated as events in the OT among certain archaeologists and historians), but they also tell tales of supernatural creation, divine (and/or divinely supported) heroes and villains, god(desse)s intervening in human affairs,etc, and are at best considered legends exaggerated and embellished by generations of oral transmission. What makes the OT any different?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3689 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: The Illiad is a poem, dealing with mythical hellenist dieties, and is not older than the OT - its dating is without any substantiation, with no hard-copy. It does not site verifiable items.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 858 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
IAmJoseph writes: The Illiad is a poem, dealing with mythical hellenist dieties, and is not older than the OT - its dating is without any substantiation, with no hard-copy. It does not site verifiable items. The Iliad, by referring to a Trojan War, most certainly cited and sited a walled city called Troy. Didn't Schliemann find that city based upon clues provided in the Iliad? So how does the existence of Troy as stated in the Iliad "not site verifiable items?" Also, archeology (which I remind you is the same archeology which you are using to verify Biblical accounts) is how the dating of the account provided in the Iliad is verified. Edited by anglagard, : gramer
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jaderis Member (Idle past 3447 days) Posts: 622 From: NY,NY Joined: |
The Illiad is a poem, dealing with mythical hellenist dieties Yes and the OT deals with a mythical Hebraic deity, your point?
and is not older than the OT Dead Sea Scrolls dated to no earlier than the second century BCE
its dating is without any substantiation You sure about that? An outline of Greek History including possible dates for the original writings of Homer Wikipedia pagedetailing the pottery of ancient Greece, many pieces of which depict events described in Homer's writings (which do not prove the events to be true, but merely provide evidence for when the tales were written). Page outlining Greek playwrights whose works are dated to the 5th and 6th centuries BCE and use Homer's writings and other Greek myths as plot points and backdrop. Socrates and Plato (and other ancient Greek philosophers) spoke about (and against) the prevailing myths of the day (including those written by Homer since they are mentioned by name which indicates that they were prevalent in society and, in the case of the epic poems at least, written down.
with no hard-copy Schoyen collection of Hesiod texts Columbia University site with links to ancient papyri texts, including ancient Greek texts.
It does not site verifiable items. I never said they do, but the historicity of some of the events (the Trojan War, for example) described (but not necessarily the details) have been shown to have some possible basis in truth (i.e. an embellishment of events happening centuries before which have turned into fanciful legends depicting divine beings and divine happenings). So, again, what is the difference between the written legends and "histories" of the ancient Greeks and the written legends and "histories"of the ancient Hebrews?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024