Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8795 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-19-2017 1:26 AM
340 online now:
Coyote, PaulK, Rrhain (3 members, 337 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: Astrophile, Flyer75
Post Volume:
Total: 820,826 Year: 25,432/21,208 Month: 1,059/2,338 Week: 180/450 Day: 0/52 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   Book "The Evolution of Genesis"
Charles Munroe
Member (Idle past 1192 days)
Posts: 40
From: Simi Valley, CA USA
Joined: 09-07-2003


Message 1 of 27 (723832)
04-09-2014 5:32 PM


The book "The Evolution of Genesis" is available on Amazon and Kindle and uses the text of the Bible to refute creationist claims.
Examples:
Genesis chapters 7 & 8 offer evidence that the Flood of Noah was not worldwide. The book then offers a number of simple experiments that demonstrate that the flood could not have been world wide.
The first four verses of Genesis, if properly translated, describe the conditions at the moment of the Big Bang that are in agreement with science.
The fifth verse describes how the author measures time and it is not in 24 hour days but eons.
Chapters 1 & 2 of Genesis describe evolution in the only terms the author has at his disposal. Adam's rib is still missing in the human male and the "flaming sword of Genesis 3:24 still exists, if one knows where to look.
The book also explains a number of miracles and shows that the Bible itself states that the Shroud of Turin is a fake.
Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by arachnophilia, posted 04-09-2014 10:22 PM Charles Munroe has responded
 Message 4 by Diomedes, posted 04-10-2014 4:31 PM Charles Munroe has responded
 Message 21 by Pressie, posted 04-14-2014 6:15 AM Charles Munroe has responded

    
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 290 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


(3)
Message 2 of 27 (723843)
04-09-2014 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Charles Munroe
04-09-2014 5:32 PM


The book "The Evolution of Genesis" is available on Amazon and Kindle and uses the text of the Bible to refute creationist claims.

using the bible to refute creationism and fundamentalism is kind of a pastime of mine. that said, just based on your description, this doesn't look promising.

Genesis chapters 7 & 8 offer evidence that the Flood of Noah was not worldwide.

it definitely was, as the intention of the text is that yahweh is unmaking all of creation. it's just that... biblical creation isn't exactly what we expect. it's a pretty strong implication of opening the windows in heaven, and unplugging the fountains of the deep, that yahweh is undoing the second creative act, the separation of the waters by heaven. he is returning the cosmos to its primal state: a limitless deep of chaotic waters.

no local flood would have been the solution for yahweh regretting that he made man. and no local flood would require saving the animals. the only thing is, the entire universe is much more local in the bible than we have come to find out with modern science.

The first four verses of Genesis, if properly translated, describe the conditions at the moment of the Big Bang that are in agreement with science.

in fact, they do not. as i mentioned above, the jewish cosmos is pretty similar to most other ancient near eastern cosmologies in that it starts with water. properly translated, the first verse of genesis should be a dependent clause, and the verb should be an infinitive (it has the wrong vowel points, though). i would be happy to run down the argument for you, but i have done it a few times here before.

this means that the water exists before anything else. it gets worse from there. genesis goes on to describe a flat earth, stars and celestial bodies affixed to a solid dome, and water above our atmosphere.

The fifth verse describes how the author measures time and it is not in 24 hour days but eons.

in fact, genesis 1 is the etiology of the observance of shabbat, and the etiology for the jewish calendar. it necessarily is literal observance of time, because that's what it was written to explain.

Chapters 1 & 2 of Genesis describe evolution in the only terms the author has at his disposal. Adam's rib is still missing in the human male

this is easy to check. human males have the same number of ribs as human females, and both genders are bilaterally symmetric.

and the "flaming sword of Genesis 3:24 still exists, if one knows where to look.

but this one intrigues me.

in any case, this sounds like another fluff book, trying to justify some strained reading of the bible as truthful. it makes the same conceit as creationists, it just doesn't have the guts to follow through. far from using the bible to refute creationist claims, it's a work of creationism refuting the bible. i've seen these before; this is almost certainly derivative of another gerald schroeder's books.

Edited by arachnophilia, : i accidentally a word


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Charles Munroe, posted 04-09-2014 5:32 PM Charles Munroe has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Charles Munroe, posted 04-10-2014 3:34 PM arachnophilia has responded
 Message 11 by Charles Munroe, posted 04-11-2014 1:10 PM arachnophilia has responded

  
Charles Munroe
Member (Idle past 1192 days)
Posts: 40
From: Simi Valley, CA USA
Joined: 09-07-2003


Message 3 of 27 (723884)
04-10-2014 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by arachnophilia
04-09-2014 10:22 PM


Suggest you read a book before you assume you know what it and it's author are about. I am definitely not a creationist.
The rib that I mention is not found in the human rib cage but in association with the 'flaming sword'; they are both found in the human genome. Genesis chapter 2 can be regarded as a crude description of a genetic event that took place some 2 1/2 billion years ago. By the way I use the Torah in English and Hebrew and the Anchor Bible Genesis as source material not the King James Bible that is loaded with mistranslations.
Ask you library to get a copy of the book, read it and then make your comment based on reality and not your fantasy.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by arachnophilia, posted 04-09-2014 10:22 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by arachnophilia, posted 04-10-2014 9:42 PM Charles Munroe has not yet responded

    
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 663
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 4 of 27 (723887)
04-10-2014 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Charles Munroe
04-09-2014 5:32 PM


The first four verses of Genesis, if properly translated, describe the conditions at the moment of the Big Bang that are in agreement with science.

Water and earth existed before light, according to Genesis. Which is completely ass-backwards. The light photon existed prior to the formation of heavier elements. In fact, water, which is comprised of hydrogen and oxygen, could not have possibly formed prior to stars being formed, as their fusion reaction is responsible for much of the heavier atoms in our cosmos. As such, a literal reading of the first and second versus is actually completely debunked by science and the Big Bang Theory.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Charles Munroe, posted 04-09-2014 5:32 PM Charles Munroe has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Charles Munroe, posted 04-10-2014 5:45 PM Diomedes has not yet responded

  
Charles Munroe
Member (Idle past 1192 days)
Posts: 40
From: Simi Valley, CA USA
Joined: 09-07-2003


Message 5 of 27 (723889)
04-10-2014 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Diomedes
04-10-2014 4:31 PM


The problem seems to be that all of you are using the King James Bible as a reference. It is loaded with translation errors, try the Torah in English for the proper translation of the first two verses or better yet the Book of Genesis of the Anchor Bible series.

The correct translation is :
1- When God set about to create the heaven and the earth.
2- The world then being a formless waste, with darkness over the seas and only an awesome wind sweeping over the water.
Although the universe was extremely hot at the moment of the Big Bang darkness prevailed as light could not yet escape. Formless waste is how the author describes the nascent universe when the extreme temperature prevented atoms from forming. The water is the authors way of describing the swirling gases that form as the universe cools and atoms can finally form. The awesome wind is the rapidly expanding universe. Then God caused the light to be separated from darkness at 380,000 years after the Big Bang during the epoch of recombination.
Keep in mind that the ancient author is handicapped by a lack of understanding of what is occurring and not having the proper words to describe the events in terms that would be readily understood today. Hope this helps.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Diomedes, posted 04-10-2014 4:31 PM Diomedes has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by AZPaul3, posted 04-10-2014 5:55 PM Charles Munroe has not yet responded
 Message 8 by arachnophilia, posted 04-10-2014 10:04 PM Charles Munroe has not yet responded

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3428
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006


(1)
Message 6 of 27 (723890)
04-10-2014 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Charles Munroe
04-10-2014 5:45 PM


The scales fall!
Although the universe was extremely hot at the moment of the Big Bang darkness prevailed as light could not yet escape. Formless waste is how the author describes the nascent universe when the extreme temperature prevented atoms from forming. The water is the authors way of describing the swirling gases that form as the universe cools and atoms can finally form. The awesome wind is the rapidly expanding universe. Then God caused the light to be separated from darkness at 380,000 years after the Big Bang during the epoch of recombination.

Of course! Why didn't we see this decades ago?!

Gotta hand it to you. That interpretive shoehorn really is an eye opener!

Thank you!

I gotta go find me a church.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Charles Munroe, posted 04-10-2014 5:45 PM Charles Munroe has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by arachnophilia, posted 04-10-2014 10:05 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 290 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 7 of 27 (723923)
04-10-2014 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Charles Munroe
04-10-2014 3:34 PM


Charles Munroe writes:

Suggest you read a book before you assume you know what it and it's author are about. I am definitely not a creationist.

and yet, this sounds like creationism. just... old earth creationism. no matter how you slice it, this is still apologetics.

The rib that I mention is not found in the human rib cage but in association with the 'flaming sword'; they are both found in the human genome. Genesis chapter 2 can be regarded as a crude description of a genetic event that took place some 2 1/2 billion years ago.

this is taking the text to be so metaphorical as to deprive it of all meaning.

and even so, it's still not even particularly scientifically accurate. there was no magic genetic event 2.5 million years ago. i'm going to guess you meant "million" above, because humans (and, indeed, complex life) did not exist 2.5 billion years ago. in any case, humans are just derived hominids, and there's nothing really all that different about other hominids.

By the way I use the Torah in English and Hebrew and the Anchor Bible Genesis as source material not the King James Bible that is loaded with mistranslations.

fantastic.

Ask you library to get a copy of the book, read it and then make your comment based on reality and not your fantasy.

well, again, i'm just going off what you have said about the book.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Charles Munroe, posted 04-10-2014 3:34 PM Charles Munroe has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 290 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


(1)
Message 8 of 27 (723928)
04-10-2014 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Charles Munroe
04-10-2014 5:45 PM


Charles Munson writes:

The problem seems to be that all of you are using the King James Bible as a reference.

i promise you, i'm not. it's sometimes the easiest find and quote because i'm lazy and it's popular, but it's not exactly the definitive version of the text. my copy reads like this:

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

The correct translation is :
1- When God set about to create the heaven and the earth.
2- The world then being a formless waste, with darkness over the seas and only an awesome wind sweeping over the water.

i don't know where you're getting this. i'd be happy to walk you through a correct translation, if you'd like:

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

when god began to create heaven and earth...


notable here is that בְּרֵאשִׁית is the construct form, meaning it has to be in construct with the next word, which has to be a noun. meaning that בָּרָא should be pointed בְּרֹא (as in genesis 5:1, same structure). a literal rendering might be "in the beginning of god creating", but the sense of the hebrew noun/verb infinitive construct doesn't render well in english. it works better in this instance to make it an english infinitive (see the new JPS tanakh). the whole phrase becomes a dependent clause (see rashi) indicating what was there when god began creating.

there's not "set about". i have no idea where that came from. it's a deviation from the text.

i don't feel that the definite articles necessarily need representing on "heaven and earth", though we could translate this "the skies and the land" if you'd like. same conceptions.

2- The world then being a formless waste, with darkness over the seas and only an awesome wind sweeping over the water.

quote:
וְהָאָרֶץ, הָיְתָה תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ, וְחֹשֶׁךְ, עַל-פְּנֵי תְהוֹם; וְרוּחַ אֱלֹהִים, מְרַחֶפֶת עַל-פְּנֵי הַמָּיִם

the earth was shapeless and empty, and darkness on the face of deep. then a wind from god swept across the face of the water


notable here is the "deep". this is not the sea (god creates that later), but the chaotic and unsorted waters that exist before creation. note that this is necessarily what is present when god begins creating, as per verse 1. as in, the deep was not created. it existed before god acted. the wind from god (or, if you'd like, the spirit of god) sweeping across the water is his first act, and light the second. but nowhere does god create water. this is more consistent with ancient near eastern mythology than it is with science.

admittedly, your translation (whichever you're using) gets some things right that most translations do not. but... "awesome"? "set about"? even then, it's how you're interpreting it that is most of the problem.

The water is the authors way of describing the swirling gases that form as the universe cools and atoms can finally form.

nope. it's water. god makes the seas by separating and localizing it.

Then God caused the light to be separated from darkness at 380,000 years after the Big Bang during the epoch of recombination.

i could check, but i'm pretty sure that not only is this argument made by gerald schroeder, but this is the figure he gives as well.

Keep in mind that the ancient author is handicapped by a lack of understanding of what is occurring and not having the proper words to describe the events in terms that would be readily understood today.

we might be able to make this argument if the author was even talking about the same thing at all, instead of describing something else that doesn't even metaphorically match up. keep in mind that the cosmology of genesis is completely wrong, as is the creative sequence. it doesn't matter what you're saying things represent, or what time periods you say something really means, if the order is wrong, and the descriptions are completely off.

further, we know the author of genesis 1 was working from source texts, one of them being genesis 2-4, and the missing portion before genesis 2 where yahweh fights the dragon.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Charles Munroe, posted 04-10-2014 5:45 PM Charles Munroe has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 290 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


(1)
Message 9 of 27 (723929)
04-10-2014 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by AZPaul3
04-10-2014 5:55 PM


Re: The scales fall!
AZPaul3 writes:

That interpretive shoehorn really is an eye opener!

i mean, i know that's sarcasm, but... that interpretive shoehorn isn't even original. schroeder should sue.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by AZPaul3, posted 04-10-2014 5:55 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by AZPaul3, posted 04-11-2014 12:16 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3428
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006


Message 10 of 27 (723935)
04-11-2014 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by arachnophilia
04-10-2014 10:05 PM


Re: The scales fall!
deleted.

Edited by AZPaul3, : why bother


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by arachnophilia, posted 04-10-2014 10:05 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
Charles Munroe
Member (Idle past 1192 days)
Posts: 40
From: Simi Valley, CA USA
Joined: 09-07-2003


Message 11 of 27 (723992)
04-11-2014 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by arachnophilia
04-09-2014 10:22 PM


The purpose of the book "The Evolution of Genesis" is to take the Biblical stories out of the realm of mythology that a literal reading would suggest. It is intended to facilitate creationists acceptance of evolution. Evolution can be interpreted as merely the recipe that the "Intelligent Designer" followed in bringing all into existence.
I use E.A. Speicer's translation of the Book of Genesis. Speicer received his PhD. from Dropsie College, what is now know as the Center for Advanced Judaic Studies. If you have a disagreement with his translation I suggest you obtain a copy of Genesis from the Anchor Bible Series now published by the Yale University Press.
As for my religious views - they definitely have absolutely nothing what so ever to do with creationism in any of its forms. I consider creationism to be an insult to both religions, science and commonsense. Enough said??
This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by arachnophilia, posted 04-09-2014 10:22 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-11-2014 1:32 PM Charles Munroe has responded
 Message 26 by arachnophilia, posted 04-14-2014 7:35 PM Charles Munroe has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11761
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


(1)
Message 12 of 27 (724006)
04-11-2014 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Charles Munroe
04-11-2014 1:10 PM


The purpose of the book "The Evolution of Genesis" is to take the Biblical stories out of the realm of mythology that a literal reading would suggest. It is intended to facilitate creationists acceptance of evolution.

So, to hell with what the authors of the Bible thought they were saying. Instead, lets make up new interpretations of their words that we can spin into being in line with scientific discoveries.

What a terrible thing to do to the Bible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Charles Munroe, posted 04-11-2014 1:10 PM Charles Munroe has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Taq, posted 04-11-2014 5:22 PM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 15 by Charles Munroe, posted 04-11-2014 8:36 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7195
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.0


(2)
Message 13 of 27 (724036)
04-11-2014 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by New Cat's Eye
04-11-2014 1:32 PM


So, to hell with what the authors of the Bible thought they were saying. Instead, lets make up new interpretations of their words that we can spin into being in line with scientific discoveries.

What a terrible thing to do to the Bible.

I agree. Even as an atheist, the Bible holds much more majesty and wisdom when it is viewed through the eyes of the original authors, warts and all. They were trying their best to relate what they believed to be their place in the universe, and did so through traditional mythology. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

To take that piece of history and try to contort it into some prophecy about genetics is just . . . wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-11-2014 1:32 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-11-2014 6:45 PM Taq has not yet responded
 Message 19 by Charles Munroe, posted 04-12-2014 3:32 PM Taq has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11761
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 14 of 27 (724041)
04-11-2014 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Taq
04-11-2014 5:22 PM


Not to mention the problems with a God leading a group to believe that they are his chosen people while actually lying about the whole thing so that some unrelated group thousands of years in the future will see that it really was some convoluted prophesy.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Taq, posted 04-11-2014 5:22 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Charles Munroe
Member (Idle past 1192 days)
Posts: 40
From: Simi Valley, CA USA
Joined: 09-07-2003


Message 15 of 27 (724054)
04-11-2014 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by New Cat's Eye
04-11-2014 1:32 PM


Terrible thing to do? What is terrible about attempting to put an end to a needless controversy. Creationism fosters ignorance and a bigoted world view. It has blocked the teaching of real science in many locations in this country and if we expect to maintain our scientific and technical edge we need people that are 21st century thinkers not scientific illiterates from the 11th century. A recent survey found that 25% of the people surveyed couldn't correctly answer the question "Is it the sun that orbits the earth or the earth that orbits the sun." That is my definition of terrible. What is your; more mythology?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-11-2014 1:32 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-11-2014 9:35 PM Charles Munroe has not yet responded
 Message 17 by ringo, posted 04-12-2014 12:41 PM Charles Munroe has not yet responded
 Message 18 by Charles Munroe, posted 04-12-2014 3:04 PM Charles Munroe has not yet responded

    
1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017