Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 122 (8763 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-25-2017 4:50 PM
396 online now:
Asgara (AdminAsgara), Coyote, jar, JonF, kjsimons, PaulK, RAZD, Son Goku (8 members, 388 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: aristotle
Post Volume:
Total: 812,089 Year: 16,695/21,208 Month: 2,584/3,593 Week: 51/646 Day: 51/78 Hour: 0/3

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
11121314
15
16Next
Author Topic:   If our sun is second or third generation, does this not conflict with Genesis ?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12768
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 211 of 231 (726110)
05-06-2014 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Blue
05-06-2014 3:07 PM


Re: Creation of light
quote:

It is not an assumption that Genesis 1:1 is describing creation of the universe and earth which includes all matter energy, space and time.

Oh, it certainly is, and a not very plausible assumption at that. If Genesis 1:1 describes anything specific it's more likely splitting the Primordial Ocean and creating a roof too keep the upper waters out (verses 6-8) and clearing the water from the land (verses 9-10). Explicitly labelled as Heaven and Earth.

quote:

If the verse is true, then that is where all things root. It makes a prediction that we will not find a origin of the universe that is contradictory. Science is still yet to prove it wrong.

Sure, we can't prove that there isn't a solid roof keeping the waters above the Earth out. Really ? And didn't you claim that the story claims that the Earth is as old as the universe ? Which we know to be false based on - among other things - the evidence in the post you were replying to !

quote:

I also find it interesting that this is the only creation story in history that mentions creation of space and time

Of course it doesn't. You just assume that it means that. For no good reason. Ignoring the comparatively tiny geocentric universe that the text does describe.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Blue, posted 05-06-2014 3:07 PM Blue has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Blue, posted 05-06-2014 3:43 PM PaulK has not yet responded

    
Blue
Inactive Member


Message 212 of 231 (726112)
05-06-2014 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by PaulK
05-06-2014 1:15 AM


Re: Creation of light
Blue writes:

Genesis 1:1 is creation of the universe, which includes all matter/energy, space and time. This can be described in gravitation theories like bb, or any theories revolving creation of all material, space and time.

Paulk writes:

That's an assumption, rather it seems to be summing up the following verses - which certainly do not describe the creation of the universe as we know it.

It is not an assumption that Genesis 1:1 is describing creation of the universe and earth which includes all matter energy, space and time. If the verse is true, then that is where all things root. It makes a prediction that we will not find a origin of the universe that is contradictory. Science is still yet to prove it wrong. I also find it interesting that this is the only creation story in history that mentions creation of space and time, all others explain creation within space and time. I also don't think it is definitive that verse 1 is a summation. This is just an argument, and it fits a specific vantage. The argument I am presenting is a different vantage of the chapter and it argues a completely different way of looking at it. When you look at them side by side, what I am arguing is much more plausible. Especially since it agrees with Science. It is a belief that God does not exist, not a fact. If we start from the vantage that God does not exist we are applying preconceptions.
If we are to test scripture we should look at science and biblical thought, and find a good interpretation of them both. If we can't reconcile scripture at all, then I would agree it is false. This is a way of reconciling scripture and showing that it is actually perfect. God does not have to communicate all things if he does not want to communicate all things. God communicated what God intended to communicate. In this interpretation God is plausible because the predictions have not been falsified.

Blue writes:

Genesis 1:2 The spirit of God is in the earth and darkness covers the earth, after it was created. We don't know much about the creation of the earth except that it was created with the universe. I would presume the darkness was carbon dioxide, methane, etc filling the atmosphere as is shown in Science.

Paulk writes:

In fact we know that the Earth came into existence about 4.5 billion years ago, a LONG time after the Big Bang (about 13.5 billion years ago). In fact this is closely related to the point of the post that you are supposedly replying to.

I have no idea why you think that "darkness" would mean the atmosphere either. And you don't mention the references to the ocean (which seems to be the Primordial Ocean, common to Middle Eastern mythologies).


Yes the universe came first and then the earth came billions of years later. This is not contradictory to the verse. It is written that God created the heaven and the earth. It is a past tense message. Heaven is rooted from the word shamayim which is translated as heaven, heavens, sky, visible heavens, sky, as abode of the stars, as the visible universe, the sky, atmosphere, etc.

Hebrew Lexicon

I would interpret the verse where it reads darkness as carbon dioxide and other gases because we know that the earth was a dark place because of the atmosphere (with reference to the early earth). I was pointing out that it is interesting how these to bits of information do not disagree with each other. I also find it interesting that the verse was written during a time when there is no way they could have known it and it is in the correct order. Universe>earth>darkness and water was present. It is an interpretation from the lens of Science. Personally I don't care if the Science understood at the time the story was written was different. The important data here is that the order is correct. The fact that they meant a flat earth with a dome does not matter. I would interpret this as, God does not care about their Science vs they must be wrong and God does not exist.

Blue writes:

Genesis 1:3 is when light penetrated the atmosphere for the first time here on earth. Later verses that discuss creation of the stars, lights, etc are mere past tense grammatically.

Paulk writes:

Where does it mention light penetrating the atmosphere ? Where is the suggestion that light existed prior to this point ? And why do you decide that the "darkness" in this verse is completely different from that in the preceding verse ?

In fact this verse seems to refer to the establishment of the day-night cycle, as verse 5 clearly states that the separated light is "day" and the darkness "night".


In Genesis 1 the universe and earth were created. "let there be light" can be interpreted using science as light penetrating darkness (the dark clouds of carbon dioxide). This may have had a different meaning to the author. What I find interesting is the order, it is perfect. Why accept only the view that the ancients thought this so it is wrong because they thought this. If God communicated information for ancients to write, they don't have to understand universe the way we understand the universe.


Sincerely

Blue


This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by PaulK, posted 05-06-2014 1:15 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by PaulK, posted 05-06-2014 4:21 PM Blue has responded

  
Blue
Inactive Member


Message 213 of 231 (726113)
05-06-2014 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by PaulK
05-06-2014 3:22 PM


Re: Creation of light
You're making a ton of assumptions about the purpose of scripture, including that it is a myth. I am not sure why it posted 2x but the 2nd post is my actual post.

Sincerely

Blue


This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by PaulK, posted 05-06-2014 3:22 PM PaulK has not yet responded

  
Blue
Inactive Member


Message 214 of 231 (726117)
05-06-2014 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by NoNukes
05-06-2014 9:38 AM


Re: Creation of light
NoNukes writes:

Aren't both of those gasses invisible?

They are not visible if the sun is not able to shine on them. The vantage of this verse is from within the earth. "the holy spirit is floating over the waters". If light is not able to penetrate within the earth because of the gas filling the atmosphere, we can't see the gas.

NoNukes writes:


So day four does not come after day two?

The days still flow. In day 4, it is speaking in past tense. The verse is about why we have seasons not that he created stars and the moon.


Sincerely

Blue


This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by NoNukes, posted 05-06-2014 9:38 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by NoNukes, posted 05-06-2014 4:46 PM Blue has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12768
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 215 of 231 (726124)
05-06-2014 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by Blue
05-06-2014 3:41 PM


Re: Creation of light
The preceding falsehoods have already been dealt with so I'll jump in here.
quote:

I also don't think it is definitive that verse 1 is a summation

Since we have a creation of Heaven and of Earth in later verses it looks pretty definite to me. And the Heaven and Earth there aren't what you say.

quote:

also don't think it is definitive that verse 1 is a summation. This is just an argument, and it fits a specific vantage. The argument I am presenting is a different vantage of the chapter and it argues a completely different way of looking at it. When you look at them side by side, what I am arguing is much more plausible. Especially since it agrees with Science

I don't think that your ideas about what the text should be are a plausible basis for a good interpretation. Let alone better than the actual text.

quote:

If we are to test scripture we should look at science and biblical thought, and find a good interpretation of them both.

Unless your idea of "good interpretation" is one that fits what you want, over and above the text then you aren't even making an attempt to do that.

quote:

This is a way of reconciling scripture and showing that it is actually perfect.

More like ignoring scripture and pretending that it is "perfect".

quote:

God does not have to communicate all things if he does not want to communicate all things. God communicated what God intended to communicate.

By which you mean that God has to do what you want him to have done. And since He didn't, you have to pretend that He did.

Genesis 1 was written for the exiles in Babylon, not for a modern scientifically literate population. It shows no intention of representing modern science, the scale of space and time is hopelessly compressed by that standard. The sky is blue because it's full of water, with a roof keeping it up there. The stars are just lights in the sky put there for the benefit of human timekeeping.

Exalt yourself by misrepresenting scripture all you want, but don't think that you're fooling anyone.

Well there's a lot more but it's all the same confusion of what you want the Bible to say with what it actually says.

quote:

What I find interesting is the order, it is perfect.

But it isn't. The primordial Earth was dry, with water coming from space, and so far as we know never completely covered in water. Birds came after land animals, so did whales. In fact the text doesn't make any distinction between ancient and modern life in it's ordering, making the order not even wrong, too far from the truth to be even a simple error.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Blue, posted 05-06-2014 3:41 PM Blue has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Blue, posted 05-06-2014 6:04 PM PaulK has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9650
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 216 of 231 (726132)
05-06-2014 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by Blue
05-06-2014 3:50 PM


Re: Creation of light
They are not visible if the sun is not able to shine on them. The vantage of this verse is from within the earth. "the holy spirit is floating over the waters". If light is not able to penetrate within the earth because of the gas filling the atmosphere, we can't see the gas.

Your claim is that the darkness is because of light being blocked by methane and carbon dioxide gas.

I would presume the darkness was carbon dioxide, methane, etc filling the atmosphere as is shown in Science.

Now you are telling me that it was too dark to see the invisible gas? That is not an explanation.

The days still flow. In day 4, it is speaking in past tense. The verse is about why we have seasons not that he created stars and the moon.

Let's look at the text and see if your explanation is plausible. I'll use the KJV. Please indicate if you would prefer something else.


14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

I can see how one might interpret versus 16 and 17 as you suggest. They could be interpreted as undated descriptions of something God has already done. However there are some serious problems with that interpretation. Serious enough to let me know that you are trying to force science onto non-science.

If verse 14 describes the creations of the seasons on day four, then surely that verse and verse 15 are describing the creation of the sun and moon. It is also clear that the language 'rule over day and night' does not mean create light and darkness. The moon does no such thing, it is merely prominent at night. Apparently some poet simply described the sun and the moon as being prominent during the day and night. Nothing wrong with that, but it does refute your interpretation.

I'd also have to suggest that verse 14 is an awfully poetic way of saying that God tilted the earth on day four. You'd almost think the writer was clueless about the cause of the seasons.

In short I think it is pretty difficult to read the text of verses 14 and 15 and not come away with the conclusion that those verses describe the creation of at least the stars and sun. Most likely the moon itself as well. All on day four. All after plant life was created.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Blue, posted 05-06-2014 3:50 PM Blue has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Blue, posted 05-06-2014 5:23 PM NoNukes has responded
 Message 220 by Blue, posted 05-06-2014 5:44 PM NoNukes has responded

    
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5273
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 217 of 231 (726145)
05-06-2014 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Blue
05-06-2014 3:07 PM


Re: Creation of light
I also find it interesting that this is the only creation story in history that mentions creation of space and time...

Hesiod might disagree, were he still around:

Verily at the first Chaos came to be, but next wide-bosomed Earth, the ever-sure foundations of all the deathless ones who hold the peaks of snowy Olympus, and dim Tartarus in the depth of the wide-pathed Earth, and Eros (Love), fairest among the deathless gods, who unnerves the limbs and overcomes the mind and wise counsels of all gods and all men within them. From Chaos came forth Erebus and black Night; but of Night were born Aether and Day, whom she conceived and bare from union in love with Erebus. And Earth first bare starry Heaven, equal to herself, to cover her on every side, and to be an ever-sure abiding-place for the blessed gods. And she brought forth long Hills, graceful haunts of the goddess-Nymphs who dwell amongst the glens of the hills.

Don't listen to apologists that Make Stuff Up, Blue. They lie a lot.


"The Christian church, in its attitude toward science, shows the mind of a more or less enlightened man of the Thirteenth Century. It no longer believes that the earth is flat, but it is still convinced that prayer can cure after medicine fails." H L Mencken

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Blue, posted 05-06-2014 3:07 PM Blue has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Blue, posted 05-06-2014 5:59 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

    
Blue
Inactive Member


Message 218 of 231 (726146)
05-06-2014 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by NoNukes
05-06-2014 4:46 PM


Re: Creation of light
NoNukes writes:

Now you are telling me that it was too dark to see the invisible gas? That is not an explanation.

In order for you to see something it has to have light on it. Do you know anything about how the eyes work? You have to remember this is supposed to be from the vantage of a human being.

quote:
14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

God is denoting a 1st reason above. The action didn't actually take place in this verse.

quote:
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

Past tense action from genesis 1:3.

quote:
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

God is denoting a 2nd reason.

Edited by Blue, : Erase


Sincerely

Blue


This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by NoNukes, posted 05-06-2014 4:46 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by Coragyps, posted 05-06-2014 5:40 PM Blue has responded
 Message 229 by NoNukes, posted 05-06-2014 8:16 PM Blue has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5273
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 219 of 231 (726148)
05-06-2014 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by Blue
05-06-2014 5:23 PM


Re: Creation of light
I believe that this description is referencing exactly what it says... The moon does come out later in the day toward the night and is out all night. Most of the time it does rule the night, if not all the time.

You need to look up at the sky more often. The moon is "out all night" about three days a month, and is visible in the day sky about three weeks out of the month. Sometimes morning, sometimes evening.

This spills over in to the Joshua's long day fable: "Then spake Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon."

How far is Gibeon from Ajalon? Would the sun being occupied in lighting the former require the moon to illuminate the latter?

Oops - caught you prior to your edit.

Edited by Coragyps, : No reason given.

Edited by Coragyps, : jumped too soon


This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Blue, posted 05-06-2014 5:23 PM Blue has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Blue, posted 05-06-2014 5:48 PM Coragyps has responded

    
Blue
Inactive Member


Message 220 of 231 (726149)
05-06-2014 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by NoNukes
05-06-2014 4:46 PM


Re: Creation of light
quote:
If verse 14 describes the creations of the seasons on day four, then surely that verse and verse 15 are describing the creation of the sun and moon. It is also clear that the language 'rule over day and night' does not mean create light and darkness. The moon does no such thing, it is merely prominent at night. Apparently some poet simply described the sun and the moon as being prominent during the day and night. Nothing wrong with that, but it does refute your interpretation.

The idea is that light was already created in Genesis 1:3. The seasons had already started, or it seems. In day 4 God is explaining why we have seasons. I didn't say he created seasons in this verse. God is denoting reasons for the sun, moon and stars..

quote:
I'd also have to suggest that verse 14 is an awfully poetic way of saying that God tilted the earth on day four. You'd almost think the writer was clueless about the cause of the seasons.

It is also a poetic way of explaining the seasons.

quote:
In short I think it is pretty difficult to read the text of verses 14 and 15 and not come away with the conclusion that those verses describe the creation of at least the stars and sun. Most likely the moon itself as well. All on day four. All after plant life was created.

I don't think the story flows well if we interpret it that light was created, then life, then the sun. Where did the light come from if not the sun? I feel it is important to interpret the chapter in a way that is logical at the least. I am not saying that we have to presume God does exist, but if we presume God does exist and interpret it the way I am claiming, it is more logical. It also is presenting a good argument that this is not a myth. You have to realize on another level that people in ancient times probably didn't have the same type of writing style and they most definitely didn't use as much grammar if at all. This is where the translation issue comes into play and I think the very reason for the confusion is because of translating issues. When we interpret it the the way I am claiming, I believe the translation is more correct in a sense. Mainly because it is more correct and agrees with Science. I am using Science to understand the chapter. Again you have to be able to presume God does exist for you to understand where I am coming from.

Edited by Blue, : Err


Sincerely

Blue


This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by NoNukes, posted 05-06-2014 4:46 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by NoNukes, posted 05-06-2014 8:03 PM Blue has not yet responded

  
Blue
Inactive Member


Message 221 of 231 (726150)
05-06-2014 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by Coragyps
05-06-2014 5:40 PM


Re: Creation of light
Everytime I look out at the night sky, early morning like 2am or night like 5pm I see the moon, as long as it is not cloudy. I will do my best to verify your claim.

Sincerely

Blue


This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Coragyps, posted 05-06-2014 5:40 PM Coragyps has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by Theodoric, posted 05-06-2014 6:22 PM Blue has not yet responded
 Message 226 by Coragyps, posted 05-06-2014 6:32 PM Blue has not yet responded
 Message 227 by Percy, posted 05-06-2014 7:05 PM Blue has not yet responded

  
Blue
Inactive Member


Message 222 of 231 (726153)
05-06-2014 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Coragyps
05-06-2014 5:22 PM


Re: Creation of light
IT reads from chaos came to be.. OR from chaos came forth...

It seems as if he was talking about time existing. Time does exist within chaos.

The bible description is about the universe and earth coming into existence from God. As a creationist, I believe God is self existing and eternal. God is not subject to material laws. Personally I wouldn't suggest God is in the form of a human being. I preference a more pantheist approach, with the exception that the universe is caused by God. Ultimately I don't like doctrine that claims man was made in the literal image of God.

Edited by Blue, : Deletion


Sincerely

Blue


This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Coragyps, posted 05-06-2014 5:22 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

  
Blue
Inactive Member


Message 223 of 231 (726155)
05-06-2014 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by PaulK
05-06-2014 4:21 PM


Re: Creation of light
You have not made a single good point. You rely on falsehoods and old interpretations, and old thought.

Sincerely

Blue


This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by PaulK, posted 05-06-2014 4:21 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by PaulK, posted 05-06-2014 6:15 PM Blue has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12768
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 224 of 231 (726156)
05-06-2014 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Blue
05-06-2014 6:04 PM


Re: Creation of light
A major case of projection there.

Tell me why the heaven of Genesis 1:1 can't be the Heaven of Genesis 1:8, other than your assumption that they are different.

Tell me why the order is perfect when it puts ocean before dry land, land plants before sea life, birds before land animals - all of them wrong.

Tell me where it explicitly refers to the creation of time or space. Not where you interpret it as meaning that - but where it explicitly says so.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Blue, posted 05-06-2014 6:04 PM Blue has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5765
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 225 of 231 (726158)
05-06-2014 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Blue
05-06-2014 5:48 PM


Re: Creation of light
Everytime I look out at the night sky, early morning like 2am or night like 5pm I see the moon, as long as it is not cloudy. I will do my best to verify your claim.

Are you that truly ignorant? Do you have no idea about the cycles of the moon? Do you truly think the Sun is out in the day and the moon is out only at night? As if they were opposites? The cluelessness is astounding.

http://www.universetoday.com/...-see-the-moon-during-the-day
http://clarkplanetarium.org/...etimes-visible-during-the-day

Do you also think that there are no stars out during the day?


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Blue, posted 05-06-2014 5:48 PM Blue has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
11121314
15
16Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017