Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8789 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-19-2017 6:29 PM
346 online now:
Coragyps, JonF, Percy (Admin), Phat (AdminPhat) (4 members, 342 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Happy Birthday: AdminPhat
Post Volume:
Total: 819,118 Year: 23,724/21,208 Month: 1,689/2,468 Week: 198/822 Day: 73/69 Hour: 0/5

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2122232425
26
Author Topic:   Creation
ringo
Member
Posts: 13622
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 376 of 389 (817890)
08-21-2017 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 367 by kbertsche
08-20-2017 9:27 PM


Re: days and dates
kbertsche writes:

Yes, there IS a "then", at the beginning of verse 3, after the circumstantial clause which is verse 2.


DOCJ and I haven't gotten to verse 3 yet. He said in Message 355 that, "Genesis 1:1 is where the universe was created. It does represent billions of years." That's what I was referring to.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by kbertsche, posted 08-20-2017 9:27 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13622
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 377 of 389 (817892)
08-21-2017 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 371 by DOCJ
08-21-2017 8:05 AM


Re: days and dates
DOCJ writes:

The genealogy in both cases are not used to calculate the age of the earth. So if you use it for calculating the age of the earth I would expect it to be incorrect.


That doesn't help you. Most of the age of the earth occurred before there were any humans and the Bible doesn't suggest that at all.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 371 by DOCJ, posted 08-21-2017 8:05 AM DOCJ has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 383 by DOCJ, posted 08-21-2017 9:17 PM ringo has responded

  
kbertsche
Member
Posts: 1372
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 378 of 389 (817906)
08-21-2017 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 373 by PaulK
08-21-2017 12:16 PM


Re: days and dates
PaulK writes:

That doesn't exactly contradict my point. The dry land - the Earth - is created.


But that's NOT what the text says. It says that the dry land is "made visible", not "created" on Day 3a. The thing that God "creates" is the separation between sea and dry land.

Here is Young's Literal Translation:

quote:

Gen. 1:9 And God saith, Let the waters under the heavens be collected unto one place, and let the dry land be seen: and it is so. 10 And God calleth to the dry land Earth, and to the collection of the waters He hath called Seas; and God seeth that [it is] good.

PaulK writes:


You seem to be contradicting yourself there. Are you assuming that creation must mean ex nihilism creation ?


Can you please explain what you perceive to be a contradiction? No, I do not assume that all creation must be ex nihilo.

PaulK writes:


I think that forming can be called creation. Why do you disagree ?


I agree.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 373 by PaulK, posted 08-21-2017 12:16 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 379 by PaulK, posted 08-21-2017 2:33 PM kbertsche has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13110
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 379 of 389 (817908)
08-21-2017 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 378 by kbertsche
08-21-2017 2:22 PM


Re: days and dates
quote:

But that's NOT what the text says. It says that the dry land is "made visible", not "created" on Day 3a. The thing that God "creates" is the separation between sea and dry land

The literal translation hardly helps you. There wasn't any hidden dry land - it should be pretty obvious that the seabed isn't dry just for start !

quote:

Can you please explain what you perceive to be a contradiction?

You say that there wasn't any creation and then you describe a creation. How can that not be a contradiction ?

quote:

I agree

Well, we have some forming which produces Earth, the sky and a distinct region of "waters above the Earth", so I see no reason not to call it a creation of Heavens and Earth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by kbertsche, posted 08-21-2017 2:22 PM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 380 by kbertsche, posted 08-21-2017 3:57 PM PaulK has responded

    
kbertsche
Member
Posts: 1372
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 380 of 389 (817923)
08-21-2017 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 379 by PaulK
08-21-2017 2:33 PM


Re: days and dates
PaulK writes:


The literal translation hardly helps you. There wasn't any hidden dry land - it should be pretty obvious that the seabed isn't dry just for start !


The text does NOT say that anything was "created" on Day 3a. The land already existed. God declares that He will allow it to "be seen", NOT to "be created". The text is clear on this. I don't see why you are trying to distort the text to say "created" here?

PaulK writes:


You say that there wasn't any creation and then you describe a creation. How can that not be a contradiction ?


Where did I say this??
The text is clear on Day 2 that there WAS a creation, that of a "firmament" (not heavens, not earth, not waters, but "firmament"). This "firmament" was created to separate the waters above from the waters below.

PaulK writes:


Well, we have some forming which produces Earth, the sky and a distinct region of "waters above the Earth", so I see no reason not to call it a creation of Heavens and Earth.


On the first three Days, God is forming "realms" which He will populate by "rulers" on the next three Days. The way that God forms these "realms" is by separation of the pre-existing material, and by naming the new realms, thus giving them meaning and function. In some cases, this separation of pre-existing material is accomplished by creating something new; in other cases not.

Here's a summary:
Day 1: God forms the realms of "day" and "night" by causing a separation between them and naming them. He separates Day from Night by creating "light".
Day 2: God forms the realms of "sea" and "sky" by separating the waters below from the waters above. He separates the waters by creating a "firmament". Here he names not the two new realms, but the separator between them, which He names "Heaven" (not to be confused with the "heavens", of which the "firmament" is only a part).
Day 3a: God forms the realms of "seas" and "dry land" by causing a separation between water and dry land and naming them. He separates Earth from Seas by gathering the waters together, NOT by creating anything new.


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 379 by PaulK, posted 08-21-2017 2:33 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 381 by PaulK, posted 08-21-2017 4:08 PM kbertsche has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13110
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 381 of 389 (817925)
08-21-2017 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 380 by kbertsche
08-21-2017 3:57 PM


Re: days and dates
quote:

The text does NOT say that anything was "created" on Day 3a. The land already existed. God declares that He will allow it to "be seen", NOT to "be created". The text is clear on this. I don't see why you are trying to distort the text to say "created" here?

I guess I am going to have to Do you think that dry land was somehow simply hidden by the water ? How could it be dry if it was under the water ?

And saying "let it be seen" does not contradict the idea that it is created. You really seem to think that a narrow literalism is the only possible reading.

quote:

Where did I say this

The text is clear on Day 2 that there WAS a creation, that of a "firmament" (not heavens, not earth, not waters, but "firmament"). This "firmament" was created to separate the waters above from the waters below.


Well I am glad you admit that much. But feel free to go back and read your post.

quote:

On the first three Days, God is forming "realms" which He will populate by "rulers" on the next three Days. The way that God forms these "realms" is by separation of the pre-existing material, and by naming the new realms, thus giving them meaning and function. In some cases, this separation of pre-existing material is accomplished by creating something new; in other cases not.

Which reveals a lack of substantive disagreement. Refusing to call something a creation even when something distinct is formed is at best a choice of phrasing.
And surely the fact that the material is pre-existing is only relevant if you insist on ex nihilism creation which you denied doing.

From your list I get the heavens created in day 2 and the Earth in day 3.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 380 by kbertsche, posted 08-21-2017 3:57 PM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 382 by kbertsche, posted 08-21-2017 6:13 PM PaulK has responded

    
kbertsche
Member
Posts: 1372
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 382 of 389 (817929)
08-21-2017 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 381 by PaulK
08-21-2017 4:08 PM


Re: days and dates
PaulK writes:


I guess I am going to have to Do you think that dry land was somehow simply hidden by the water ? How could it be dry if it was under the water ?


The land was already here, covered with water. It had already been created.

Since it was covered with water, it was not dry.

PaulK writes:


And saying "let it be seen" does not contradict the idea that it is created. You really seem to think that a narrow literalism is the only possible reading.


I am simply trying to be careful and to urge care with the text, and not to force foreign understandings on it.

When an author chooses the word "created" for some things and "be seen" for others, he is making a distinction that should not be ignored. You might WISH that the text said that the earth was "created" on Day 3, but it doesn't. We should not impose our wishes on the text.

PaulK writes:


Well I am glad you admit that much. But feel free to go back and read your post.


I did. I see no contradiction in what I wrote. If you think you do, you are misreading me.

PaulK writes:


From your list I get the heavens created in day 2 and the Earth in day 3.


That's not what I said, and it's not what the text says.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 381 by PaulK, posted 08-21-2017 4:08 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 384 by PaulK, posted 08-22-2017 12:08 AM kbertsche has not yet responded
 Message 386 by ringo, posted 08-22-2017 12:16 PM kbertsche has responded

    
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 383 of 389 (817939)
08-21-2017 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 377 by ringo
08-21-2017 12:42 PM


Re: days and dates
The Bible does suggest the heaven and the earth were created before anything in the earth was created. And it happened before the 6 days of creation. Gen 1:2 is a new sentence beginning from on the earth. Genesis 1:1 is looking down at the heavens and the earth. And if you look at the big bang model it does two things. 1, there was an expansion (as is noted in scripture since it came into existence) from an unexplainable point. 2, the expansion is evidence of an outside region for it expand into it. If the bible were wrong I wouldn't expect congruency between the evidence and scripture.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 377 by ringo, posted 08-21-2017 12:42 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 385 by ringo, posted 08-22-2017 11:51 AM DOCJ has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13110
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 384 of 389 (817942)
08-22-2017 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 382 by kbertsche
08-21-2017 6:13 PM


Re: days and dates
quote:

The land was already here, covered with water. It had already been created.
Since it was covered with water, it was not dry.

So it is reasonable to say that dry land was not merely revealed.

quote:

I am simply trying to be careful and to urge care with the text, and not to force foreign understandings on it.

And yet you do exactly that when you insist that there is a move of focus to Earth. And you aren't really doing that here - certainly you offer no argument that any "foreign" understanding is involved.

quote:

When an author chooses the word "created" for some things and "be seen" for others, he is making a distinction that should not be ignored. You might WISH that the text said that the earth was "created" on Day 3, but it doesn't. We should not impose our wishes on the text.

If you can show that Hebrew writers insisted on using words in that way, rather than varying words because it reads better as English writers do you might have a point. But simply assuming that they did might well be forcing a foreign understanding on the text - exactly contrary to your stated intent.

quote:

That's not what I said, and it's not what the text says.

Then I guess you are determined to avoid seeing a more general idea of creation and are pretty much stuck with assuming that it has to be ex nihilo to count.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 382 by kbertsche, posted 08-21-2017 6:13 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13622
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 385 of 389 (817990)
08-22-2017 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 383 by DOCJ
08-21-2017 9:17 PM


Re: days and dates
DOCJ writes:

The Bible does suggest the heaven and the earth were created before anything in the earth was created. And it happened before the 6 days of creation.


Does it really suggest that or do you just wish it did? If you were reading Genesis 1 with no preconceived notions, would you conclude that there were billions of years?

DOCJ writes:

Gen 1:2 is a new sentence beginning from on the earth. Genesis 1:1 is looking down at the heavens and the earth.


Well of course Genesis 1:1 is looking down on the earth; there was nowhere to stand on earth yet. How can you stretch a different viewpoint to billions of years?

DOCJ writes:

2, the expansion is evidence of an outside region for it expand into it.


No, the Big Bang didn't expand "into" anything. It was an expansion OF everything.

DOCJ writes:

If the bible were wrong I wouldn't expect congruency between the evidence and scripture.


That's like saying that Ian Fleming mentioned Paris and Paris exists so the James Bond stories must be true. Even if there are some congruencies, it's the incongruencies that determine whether or not the Bible is reliable.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by DOCJ, posted 08-21-2017 9:17 PM DOCJ has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13622
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 386 of 389 (817992)
08-22-2017 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 382 by kbertsche
08-21-2017 6:13 PM


Re: days and dates
kbertsche writes:

Since it was covered with water, it was not dry.


So God created the dryness.

Really, this nitpicking about whether anything was "created" is pretty silly.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 382 by kbertsche, posted 08-21-2017 6:13 PM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 387 by kbertsche, posted 08-22-2017 1:13 PM ringo has responded

  
kbertsche
Member
Posts: 1372
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 387 of 389 (817994)
08-22-2017 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 386 by ringo
08-22-2017 12:16 PM


Re: days and dates
ringo writes:


So God created the dryness.
Really, this nitpicking about whether anything was "created" is pretty silly.


You might consider it "nitpicking", but I would call it "being careful". Too many people read the account carelessly and sloppily, making it say things that it doesn't.

The point is that from v.2 onward, there is no mention of the "'eretz" (earth, land) being created; it already exists, covered by the waters. (There is also no mention of the waters being created; they already exist, too.). Yes, there is mention of the dry ground (yabbāsh) being seen (rāʾ), but not of the underlying earth/land ('eretz) being created (bārāʾ or 'asah). Both the nouns and the verbs are different.

If they are included in the account at all, the only place for the earth/land and waters to be created is in verse 1.

Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 386 by ringo, posted 08-22-2017 12:16 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 388 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-22-2017 1:24 PM kbertsche has not yet responded
 Message 389 by ringo, posted 08-22-2017 1:25 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11701
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 388 of 389 (817996)
08-22-2017 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 387 by kbertsche
08-22-2017 1:13 PM


Re: days and dates
the only place for the earth/land and waters to be created is in verse 1.

So there's "The Earth", which is our world. Then there is the "earth", which is the land in our world.

In verse 1, our world was formless and void - that tells me that it existed but it hadn't physically existed as land yet.

It isn't until verse 9 that the land is talked about being seen, which implies that it didn't physically exist as land until the third day.

As I see it: our world was created on the first day but the land didn't exist until the third.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 387 by kbertsche, posted 08-22-2017 1:13 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13622
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 389 of 389 (817997)
08-22-2017 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 387 by kbertsche
08-22-2017 1:13 PM


Re: days and dates
kbertsche writes:

You might consider it "nitpicking", but I would call it "being careful".


You can be too careful, to the point of being catatonic.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 387 by kbertsche, posted 08-22-2017 1:13 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
2122232425
26
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017