Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 116 (8752 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-28-2017 4:28 AM
110 online now:
PaulK, Tangle (2 members, 108 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: DeliverUsFromEvolution
Post Volume:
Total: 809,131 Year: 13,737/21,208 Month: 3,219/3,605 Week: 5/556 Day: 5/54 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123456
7
8Next
Author Topic:   Genesis 1:1-5 Day One
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9550
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 91 of 110 (662777)
05-18-2012 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by ICANT
05-18-2012 3:21 PM


Re: The Light was Good
So why do they have to be adjusted?

Clocks are adjusted because we humans like to keep them synchronized with natural processes that do not run at constant speed. It's entirely that simple.

Seems to me like the atomic clock is adjusted to reality. The real time that Earth revolves on it axis.

You yourself have already noted that the earth's rotation is slowing down. That acknowledgement is an admission that the earth rotation cannot be keeping "real" time.

We have leap years simply because the year is not an exact a multiple of the either a 24 hour period, or the mean solar day. None of that has anything to do with adjusting non-reality to reality.

Where do you get your notion that the earth's known to be non-uniform rotation is an indicator of real time?

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

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)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by ICANT, posted 05-18-2012 3:21 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by ICANT, posted 05-18-2012 6:20 PM NoNukes has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5577
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 92 of 110 (662797)
05-18-2012 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by NoNukes
05-18-2012 4:38 PM


Re: The Light was Good
Hi No,

NoNukes writes:

We have leap years simply because the year is not an exact a multiple of the either a 24 hour period, or the mean solar day. None of that has anything to do with adjusting non-reality to reality.

quote:
Scientists have reliable data on the Earth's rotational speed, based on observations of the sun's position in the sky during solar eclipses, going back some 2,500 years. Although the rotational rate hasnt declined smoothly, over that period the average day has grown longer by between 15 millionths and 25 millionths of a second every year.
http://www.popsci.com/...g-how-long-until-days-last-25-hours

If the average reduction in the Earth's rotation is between 15 millionths and 25 millionths of a second every year.

Why is a leap second added on average of every 1 1/2 years?

Using the 25 millionth of a second reduction it wouldn't it take 40,000 years to require a leap second?

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by NoNukes, posted 05-18-2012 4:38 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by NoNukes, posted 05-18-2012 7:26 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9550
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.0


(2)
Message 93 of 110 (662800)
05-18-2012 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by ICANT
05-18-2012 6:20 PM


Re: The Light was Good
Why is a leap second added on average of every 1 1/2 years?

The reduction in the earth's rotational speed is not the reason for adding the leap second (or at least not the primary reason). The real issue is that the definition of the second is not exactly the same as one mean solar day divided by 86400.

The mean solar day is actually about 86400.002 seconds long based on the current definition of a second. So independent of the fact that the mean solar day is lengthening at a comparatively small rate, the 0.002 sec between 24 hours based on the definition of a second, and the mean solar day piles up to be about 0.9 seconds in something like a year and a half. At that point a leap second is added.

The rate at which the difference accumulates is increasing by that 15-25 millions of a second each year, but as you've pointed out, that is a significantly smaller effect.

The confusion between the two effects was the basis for a silly PRATT that predicted that the earth could not be billions of years old because it would have stopped rotating by now based on the rate at which leap seconds were being added. But as discussed above, the leap second is not caused by the lengthening of the solar day.

We can find the history of the definition of a second, and some of the factors affecting the length of the solar day in the wikipedia article linked to below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second


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

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by ICANT, posted 05-18-2012 6:20 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9550
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 94 of 110 (663076)
05-21-2012 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by ICANT
05-17-2012 11:44 AM


Re: light and life
My reasons for doing so is that there are 8 generations of people mentioned prior to the person known as Seth being born. Yet he was said to be born when his father was 120 years old. You do the math.

Are you discounting the last verse of chapter 4 as being inaccurate? I don't understand the reasons you give for not including that last verse as part of Genesis.

The third reason is that the people in Genesis 2:4 through 4:24 have no ages attached to any of them. In fact there is only 2 deaths recorded of any of these people.

I don't understand any of your reasons, but this one seems totally irrelevant.


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

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by ICANT, posted 05-17-2012 11:44 AM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-21-2012 11:25 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11349
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 95 of 110 (663166)
05-21-2012 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by ICANT
05-17-2012 11:44 AM


Re: light and life
Actually, unless my memory fails me I leave 2 verses of chapter 4 out as I do not agree with the division into chapters made by Stephen Langton, an Archbishop of Canterbury.

Is that you admitting the KJV is erroneous?

My reasons for doing so is that there are 8 generations of people mentioned prior to the person known as Seth being born. Yet he was said to be born when his father was 120 years old. You do the math.

The second reason is that the book of the generations recorded in chapter 5 of the man created in Genesis 1:27 does not include any of the people in Genesis chapter 2:4 through 4:24.

The third reason is that the people in Genesis 2:4 through 4:24 have no ages attached to any of them. In fact there is only 2 deaths recorded of any of these people.

But your reasoning stems from maintaining your original position, which makes it circular, and thus illogical.

As I have stated to you several times if you would like to discuss this further, start a thread and make your arguments why you hold the position you hold.

We're in a thread right now. I hold my position in an effort to maintain the honest truth of the matter.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by ICANT, posted 05-17-2012 11:44 AM ICANT has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11349
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 96 of 110 (663167)
05-21-2012 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by NoNukes
05-21-2012 9:14 AM


Re: light and life
Are you discounting the last verse of chapter 4 as being inaccurate? I don't understand the reasons you give for not including that last verse as part of Genesis.

ICANT, iirc, hold the chronological order of Genesis to be this:

Gen 1:1 = the day god created the heavens and earth.

Within that one day, you have Gen 2:4, which happens during the day god created the earth, through the end of Gen 4 all happening within Gen 1:1.

Then, you have Gen 5 and forward happening just before Gen 1:2, with The Flud resulting in the formless void that is described in that verse.

Its a type of Gap Theory -- look it up on wiki

"Adam" can mean just "mankind" rather than an individual person. And there's the part about stuff happening "in the day" god created the earth.

The probelm is, that at the end of Gen 4, those last two verses, Adam gives birth to Seth who gives birth to Enoch. And at the begining of Gen 5, we have Adam giving birth to Seth who gives birth to Enoch. But according to his timeline, those are two unrelated groups of people because those in Gen 5 all die off before the earth becomes formless and void because of the flood as recorded in Gen 1:2. Then there's a whole new group of mankind. ICANT writes this off as a coincidence: i.e. there were enough people with those names that they don't have to referring to the exact same people.

Its pretty much the nail in the coffin of his whole explanation, so now he just doesn't include those last two versus as being a part of Chapter 4.

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by NoNukes, posted 05-21-2012 9:14 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by arachnophilia, posted 05-24-2012 3:46 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 146 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 97 of 110 (663383)
05-24-2012 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by ICANT
05-13-2012 1:39 AM


Re: The Light was Good
ICANT writes:

God did say He עשה which was translated made in the KJV but the verb is in the niphal stem which when it is would mean "to be observed".

hi there ICANT. still pretending you know stuff about biblical hebrew, huh?

quote:
וַיַּעַשׂ אֱלֹהִים אֶת־שְׁנֵי הַמְּאֹרֹת הַגְּדֹלִים אֶת־הַמָּאֹור הַגָּדֹל לְמֶמְשֶׁלֶת הַיֹּום וְאֶת־הַמָּאֹור הַקָּטֹן לְמֶמְשֶׁלֶת הַלַּיְלָה וְאֵת הַכֹּוכָבִֽים׃

יַּעַשׂ looks qal imperfect to me. here's what a niphal imperfect would look like, יֵעָשֶׂה as in:

quote:
וְחֵלֶב נְבֵלָה וְחֵלֶב טְרֵפָה יֵעָשֶׂה לְכָל־מְלָאכָה וְאָכֹל לֹא תֹאכְלֻֽהוּ׃

(leviticus 7:24)


note the different niqud: ee and ah, (thus niphal). niphal also generally has a nun prefix (thus the niphal name), and is basically just passive voice. but i'd invite you to show any reason why you think עשה should be translated "observe" in any other verse. what i think you did is cracked open blueletterbible, and read this:

quote:
b) (Niphal)
1) to be done
2) to be made
3) to be produced
4) to be offered
5) to be observed
6) to be used

what that's based on is anyone's guess, considering it's not found translated that way in the actual concordance section:

quote:
AV do 1333, make 653, wrought 52, deal 52, commit 49, offer 49, execute 48, keep 48, shew 43, prepare 37, work 29, do so 21, perform 18, get 14, dress 13, maker 13, maintain 7, misc 154

but hey, maybe it's in the "miscellaneous" ones. also note that the author uses a different word, ראה, when he describes god observing something:

quote:
וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים אֶת־הָאֹור כִּי־טֹוב וַיַּבְדֵּל אֱלֹהִים בֵּין הָאֹור וּבֵין הַחֹֽשֶׁךְ׃

(genesis 1:4)


Nowhere does it say God ברא (created) the lights, sun, or moon.

while this is technically correct, i'm forced to wonder why you think this is a valid dichotomy. note that these verse use all three relevant terms as synonyms:

quote:
כֹּל הַנִּקְרָא בִשְׁמִי וְלִכְבֹודִי בְּרָאתִיו יְצַרְתִּיו אַף־עֲשִׂיתִֽיו׃

(isaiah 43:7)


quote:
יֹוצֵר אֹור וּבֹורֵא חֹשֶׁךְ עֹשֶׂה שָׁלֹום וּבֹורֵא רָע אֲנִי יְהוָה עֹשֶׂה כָל־אֵֽלֶּה׃ ס

(isaiah 45:7)


quote:
כִּי כֹה אָֽמַר־יְהוָה בֹּורֵא הַשָּׁמַיִם הוּא הָאֱלֹהִים יֹצֵר הָאָרֶץ וְעֹשָׂהּ הוּא כֹֽונְנָהּ לֹא־תֹהוּ בְרָאָהּ לָשֶׁבֶת יְצָרָהּ אֲנִי יְהוָה וְאֵין עֹֽוד׃

(isaiah 45:18)


quote:
כִּי הִנֵּה יֹוצֵר הָרִים וּבֹרֵא רוּחַ וּמַגִּיד לְאָדָם מַה־שֵּׂחֹו עֹשֵׂה שַׁחַר עֵיפָה וְדֹרֵךְ עַל־בָּמֳתֵי אָרֶץ יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵֽי־צְבָאֹות שְׁמֹֽו׃ ס

(amos 4:13)


Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by ICANT, posted 05-13-2012 1:39 AM ICANT has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 146 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


(1)
Message 98 of 110 (663385)
05-24-2012 3:46 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by New Cat's Eye
05-21-2012 11:25 PM


"when"
catholic scientist writes:

And there's the part about stuff happening "in the day" god created the earth.

this is just poor understanding hebrew idioms and grammar. i've had this discussion with ICANT before. he refuses to learn.

gen 1:1 is a subordinate clause. it says,

quote:
בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ

in the beginning of god creating the heaven and the earth...


what it does not say is that this all happened at some arbitrary beginning of time. if it had meant to say that, it would have said,

quote:
ברשונה ברא אלהים

with an abstract, "at first". see rashi for confirmation:

quote:
In the beginning of Gods creation of: Heb. בְּרֵאשִית בָּרָא. This verse calls for a midrashic interpretation [because according to its simple interpretation, the vowelization of the word בָּרָא, should be different, as Rashi explains further]. It teaches us that the sequence of the Creation as written is impossible, as is written immediately below as our Rabbis stated (Letters of R. Akiva , letter beth ; Gen. Rabbah 1:6; Lev. Rabbah 36:4): [God created the world] for the sake of the Torah, which is called (Prov. 8:22): the beginning of His way, and for the sake of Israel, who are called (Jer. 2:3) the first of His grain. But if you wish to explain it according to its simple meaning, explain it thus: At the beginning of the creation of heaven and earth, the earth was astonishing with emptiness, and darknessand God said, Let there be light. But Scripture did not come to teach the sequence of the Creation, to say that these came first, for if it came to teach this, it should have written:At first (בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה) He created the heavens and the earth, for there is no רֵאשִׁית in Scripture that is not connected to the following word, [i.e., in the construct state] like (ibid. 27:1):In the beginning of (בְּרֵאשִית) the reign of Jehoiakim ; (below 10:10)the beginning of (רֵאשִׁית) his reign ; (Deut. 18:4)the first (רֵאשִׁית) of your corn. Here too, you say בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אלֹהִים, like בְּרֵאשִׁית בְּרֹא, in the beginning of creating. And similar to this is,At the beginning of the Lords speaking (דִּבֶּר) to Hosea, (Hos. 1:2), i.e., at the beginning of the speaking (דִּבּוּרוֹ) of the Holy One, Blessed be He, to Hosea, the Lord said to Hosea, etc. Now if you say that it came to teach that these (i.e., heaven and earth) were created first, and that its meaning is: In the beginning of all, He created these-and that there are elliptical verses that omit one word, like (Job 3:9): For [He] did not shut the doors of my [mothers] womb, and it does not explain who it was who shut [the womb]; and like (Isa. 8:4): he will carry off the wealth of Damascus, and it does not explain who will carry it off; and like (Amos 6:12): or will one plow with cattle, and it does not explain: if a man will plow with cattle ; and like (Isa. 46: 10): telling the end from the beginning, and it does not explain that [it means] telling the end of a matter from the beginning of a matter-if so, [if you say that Scripture indicates the order of creation] be astounded at yourself, for the water preceded, as it is written: and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the water, and Scripture did not yet disclose when the creation of water took place! From this you learn that the water preceded the earth. Moreover, the heavens were created from fire and water. Perforce, you must admit that Scripture did not teach us anything about the sequence of the earlier and the later [acts of creation]. (chabad)

further, "in the day of" as in genesis 2:4:

quote:
בְּיוֹם, עֲשׂוֹת יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים--אֶרֶץ וְשָׁמָיִם.

is an idiom. note that these two verses, and genesis 5:1:

quote:
בְּיוֹם, בְּרֹא אֱלֹהִים אָדָם, בִּדְמוּת אֱלֹהִים, עָשָׂה אֹתוֹ.

all have the same structure: complex preposition ("in the day of" and "in the beginning of") followed by an infinitive verb ("creating", "making" and "creating", though the first bara as the wrong vowel points, as above) followed by the subject ("god"), and a predicate. following that predicate is the independent clause, which describes the actual actions that take place during the timeframe described in the subordinate clause.

so, "in the day of god making adam, he made him in god's image." did that happen over the course of the whole day, or at some arbitrary point during the day, or right when god made adam?

or, "in the day of god making earth and heaven, no shrub of the field was yet in the earth." was there no shrub for that whole day, or just when god made the earth?

it turn out that "when" is actually a great translation for this complex preposition. it's all that it actually means. and in this case, the "when" refers to the general creation: when god made everything. basically, the whole of genesis 1, though that chapter had not yet been written when genesis 2 and 3 were composed.

"Adam" can mean just "mankind" rather than an individual person.

and it almost certainly does. in the example i posted above, genesis 5:1,2, it calls adam "him" and uses singular in verse 1, and "them" (male and female) in verse 2. it's almost certainly referring back to the story of genesis 2-4. a similar thing happens in genesis 1:27, singular and then plural.

The probelm is, that at the end of Gen 4, those last two verses, Adam gives birth to Seth who gives birth to Enoch. And at the begining of Gen 5, we have Adam giving birth to Seth who gives birth to Enoch. But according to his timeline, those are two unrelated groups of people because those in Gen 5 all die off before the earth becomes formless and void because of the flood as recorded in Gen 1:2. Then there's a whole new group of mankind. ICANT writes this off as a coincidence: i.e. there were enough people with those names that they don't have to referring to the exact same people.

yup, and the whole thing is formed on an overly literal reading, devoid of knowledge about idioms and grammar, and based too heavily on a preconception that doesn't really hold up to examination.

note that the plant thing is another contradiction: if you read it all as one literal day, god then goes on to, you know, plant a garden and call it "eden". all in that same poorly conceived "day". the story itself contradicts that reading.

Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-21-2012 11:25 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 146 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 99 of 110 (663387)
05-24-2012 4:11 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by ICANT
05-17-2012 11:44 AM


Re: light and life
ICANT writes:

Actually, unless my memory fails me I leave 2 verses of chapter 4 out as I do not agree with the division into chapters made by Stephen Langton, an Archbishop of Canterbury.

nor do i!

quote:
זֶה סֵפֶר, תּוֹלְדֹת אָדָם: בְּיוֹם, בְּרֹא אֱלֹהִים אָדָם, בִּדְמוּת אֱלֹהִים, עָשָׂה אֹתוֹ.

but do you suppose that the author of genesis just randomly interjected "this is the book of the generations of adam" without, you know, intending for it begin a new section? toledot are commonly recognized as division markers by... every biblical scholar ever?

now, if you'd lopped off everything from, say, 4:16 or 4:17 (or somewhere in there) to 4:26, i might understand. that's suddenly concerned with genealogy, and doesn't do as good a job of it as chapter 5 does, as you note.

but it's pretty clear that is the interjection, and that the "adam" in verse 25 is the same "adam" in verse 1. and "adam" to "enosh" is a pretty important step symbolically, since those are the two words for "man".

My reasons for doing so is that there are 8 generations of people mentioned prior to the person known as Seth being born. Yet he was said to be born when his father was 120 years old. You do the math.

sure. but only if you do the math on genesis 10. why to cham and yafeth have a bunch of kids and grandkids (and why do their kids have a bunch of kids and grandkids) before shem? yet shem has his first child at only 100?

The second reason is that the book of the generations recorded in chapter 5 of the man created in Genesis 1:27 does not include any of the people in Genesis chapter 2:4 through 4:24.

sure it does: adam. your problem is that you think there's more than one. this is, of course, begging the question. you can't demonstrate something with evidence based on the assumption of what you set out to demonstrate. ruling out genesis 4:25 and 26 is further question begging: you've rigged it. genesis 5 mentions seth and enosh. you think these are a different seth and a different enosh? or do you just pretend those two verse don't exist?

The third reason is that the people in Genesis 2:4 through 4:24 have no ages attached to any of them.

nor do the people in genesis 10.

In fact there is only 2 deaths recorded of any of these people.

ditto for genesis 10. these are just people that the authors of the genealogies were unconcerned with.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by ICANT, posted 05-17-2012 11:44 AM ICANT has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 146 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 100 of 110 (663388)
05-24-2012 4:16 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by kbertsche
05-05-2012 1:19 PM


Re: The Light was Good
kbertsche writes:

One minor quibble with the OP: it wasn't the light on Day 1 which was created to "demarcate time", it was the light bearers (sun, moon, stars) on Day 4 which were created to do so, "to indicate seasons and days and years" (v.14).

yes, and no. the days are still clearly defined as periods of darkness, followed by periods of light, meant to be the origin of the jewish daily calendar.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by kbertsche, posted 05-05-2012 1:19 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 146 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 101 of 110 (663389)
05-24-2012 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by jar
05-05-2012 2:56 PM


Re: The Light was Good
jar writes:

Sine the story uses the plural 'waters'

hey jar. "water" singular is the correct translation, as well as "heaven" singular, and "god" singular. and all for the same reasons, even though they all end with a typically plural suffix: you can't count them.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by jar, posted 05-05-2012 2:56 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 146 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 102 of 110 (663390)
05-24-2012 4:27 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by ICANT
05-14-2012 1:56 AM


Re: Life before Genesis 1:2? - NOWAY!
ICANT writes:

So the heavens and the Earth began to exist in Genesis 1:1

heaven began to exist in verses 6-8, and earth began to exist in verses 9-10.

do you honestly think they existed before god made them, and before god named them, with their current appearances and current names? i understand that you think god made his creation twice, but they wouldn't need to be named again the second time.

That was the first city built and it was built during the day the Lord God created the heavens and the Earth as it is part of the history of that day.

this is a busy day! people are being born, and dying, and having grandkids, and building cities!

Isaiah said God did not create the mess found in Genesis 1:2.

isaiah said that god had purpose to his creation. and, in any case, if you'd like to read super-literally, genesis 1:1 doesn't say that god created waste, either. just that it was waste when he began creating. the bible doesn't describe creation as ex-nihilo.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by ICANT, posted 05-14-2012 1:56 AM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Evangelical Humanists, posted 05-29-2012 6:48 AM arachnophilia has responded

  
Evangelical Humanists
Junior Member (Idle past 1666 days)
Posts: 14
Joined: 05-27-2012


Message 103 of 110 (663906)
05-27-2012 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jon
05-04-2012 11:44 PM


Re: The Light was Good
Why was plants and trees made on Day 3? Yet according to Genesis the Sun was not created until Day 4? How do you separate light and dark which it does twice? Plants and trees cannot produce photosynthesis without sunlight. Basically creation theory was shot down the minute is was discovered that the earth was not the center of the universe.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jon, posted 05-04-2012 11:44 PM Jon has not yet responded

  
Evangelical Humanists
Junior Member (Idle past 1666 days)
Posts: 14
Joined: 05-27-2012


Message 104 of 110 (664121)
05-29-2012 6:48 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by arachnophilia
05-24-2012 4:27 AM


Re: Life before Genesis 1:2? - NOWAY!
the bible doesn't describe creation as ex-nihilo.

It's implied in Hebrews 11:3 which contradicts Genesis 1:1.......the Biblical creation story is an ex-nihilo creation event. In Genesis 1:1 he creates heaven and earth so this indicates that before there was nothing. If earth did not exist prior to that then why would the writer say expressly that he created heaven and earth? The Bible is loaded with these ex-nihilo statements:

http://www.reasons.org/articles/creation-ex-nihilo


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by arachnophilia, posted 05-24-2012 4:27 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by arachnophilia, posted 05-29-2012 8:44 PM Evangelical Humanists has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 146 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


(1)
Message 105 of 110 (664204)
05-29-2012 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Evangelical Humanists
05-29-2012 6:48 AM


Re: Life before Genesis 1:2? - NOWAY!
Evangelical Humanists writes:

It's implied in Hebrews 11:3 which contradicts Genesis 1:1.......

i believe you're reading that wrong. hebrews 11:3 says:

quote:
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

making things (that appear) out of other things (that do not appear) is not making things out of nothing. in any case, it does contradict genesis 1 in that the raw materials are still present: the water that formed the seas is the same water from which heaven and earth were made. the authors of the new testament had a decidedly different ideology from the authors of the old testament, and appeared to only be reading the old testament in translation. it's quite easy to see how they could get different ideas.

In Genesis 1:1 he creates heaven and earth so this indicates that before there was nothing. If earth did not exist prior to that then why would the writer say expressly that he created heaven and earth?

perhaps you had better scroll up a bit, and read this comment. my reply above was to ICANT, who knows this yet refuses to listen, as he think he knows the language better than rashi, even though he can't even keep his alef-bet straight.

his problem -- the reason for much of this thread's divergence -- is that he thinks that genesis 1:1 describes a creation event, even though that creation event is obviously described in the chapter that proceeds from that verse. in that description, the heaven and the earth are both made from materials that already exist: water. ICANT sees this as indicating two separate creation events, but that's demonstrably wrong for grammatical reasons. but even if the verse were an independent clause (it's not), it would still be quite obviously a preface or introduction to story itself, which provides the details. and in those details, creation is not ex-nihilo.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Evangelical Humanists, posted 05-29-2012 6:48 AM Evangelical Humanists has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Evangelical Humanists, posted 05-30-2012 6:14 AM arachnophilia has responded

  
Prev123456
7
8Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017