Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where does it say in the bible that the Universe is only 6,000 years old?
Rick Rose
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 114 (108940)
05-17-2004 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by jar
05-17-2004 10:59 PM


Re: The events of the fourth day in Genesis.
active force (spirit)." Heb., we ruach. Besides being translated "spirit," ruach is also translated "wind" and by other words that denote an invisible active force.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by jar, posted 05-17-2004 10:59 PM jar has not replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 62 of 114 (108944)
05-17-2004 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Rick Rose
05-17-2004 11:15 PM


Re: More to it than meets the eye.
Rick Rose writes:
That does not appear to be the case Sylas. Your interpretation seems to come appart. It allows for no spacific beginning of creation. If you place the beginning of creation at vrs 2, vrs 1 merely being an introduction of things to come, you are already picking up the account after the globe already came into existence:
My reading of verse 1 as the introduction to an account of the creation of heaven and earth is the only interpretation ever considered by early commentators. I'd be fascinated to learn of when it was first proposed that verse 1 refers to a complete creation of heaven and earth, with verse 2 then starting on subsequent creation events.
You are still not really engaging with my interpretation. In speaking of "the globe", you have already moved away from my interpretation. My interpretation is that the first chapter of Genesis was given in the context of an ancient cosmology, in which the notion of a globe for the earth does not appear.
Your interpretation obscures the theological impact of the account. It denies the plain description of the creation of heavenly bodies, and the firmament, and the cycles of night and day. It requires ad hoc notions that are in conflict with available evidence; such as an initial universal ocean, and an initial opaque cloud cover. It fails in its attempt to make a match with what we know of the world by science, by avoiding many problems, such as the creation of flowering plants and seed bearing herbs or grains before animals (flowering plants and herbs or grasses actually arose after the dinosaurs), or the creation of birds and sea dwellers before animals (in fact, terrestrial animals were formed before birds, and many kinds of aquatic animals developed from terrestrial ancestors).
The fundamental error is to treat Genesis as a scientific account, or to link its value to how well it matches with histories inferred by empirical sciences.
As long as you do this, you will continue to get something shorn of its theological significance, falsified by modern discoveries in geology and palaeontology and astronomy, and rendered redundant by the development of more clear and unambiguous descriptions of the events in the past.
Cheers -- Sylas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Rick Rose, posted 05-17-2004 11:15 PM Rick Rose has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Rick Rose, posted 05-18-2004 12:09 AM Sylas has replied

  
Rick Rose
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 114 (108946)
05-17-2004 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by jar
05-17-2004 11:26 PM


Re: More to it than meets the eye.
The bible is not a science textbook, but where it touches on science it never errs. Theological interpretation has been absurd as when Galileo died in prison for his correct assumptions at the hands of the ecclesiastic powers. The bible didn't make that mistake, the church did.
No the bible is not a myth. It is an accurate account of creation and mans history inspired (literally God breathed)by mans creator.
Case in point.
First person, God speaking to Job.
Job 38:
31 Can you tie fast the bonds of the Kimah constellation,
Or can you loosen the very cords of the Kesil constellation?
Moses, the writer of Job knew of no physical forces binding stellar matter. Not until recent history has man known of such physical forces.
The Apostle Paul wrote at 1cor 15:41
41 The glory of the sun is one sort, and the glory of the moon is another, and the glory of the stars is another; in fact, star differs from star in glory.
How did a man two thousand years ago accurately state that stars differ in glory. Only in recent history have scientist figured that out.
1) Bible not science text book, but where it touches on science, it is very accurate.
2) The bible is more than a nice story. It is a book inspired by Jehovah, our creator, and provides a summary of his activity, past, present, and future.
If you want to discuss these points futher, please start another thread on the bible's accuracy. But here let's follow this thread about the age of earth.
rickrose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by jar, posted 05-17-2004 11:26 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by sidelined, posted 05-18-2004 12:42 AM Rick Rose has not replied
 Message 72 by Coragyps, posted 05-18-2004 1:00 PM Rick Rose has replied

  
Rick Rose
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 114 (108948)
05-18-2004 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Sylas
05-17-2004 11:50 PM


Re: More to it than meets the eye.
You have answered in a shotgun style, not discussion replying to the content of my post. If you are able to reply to the content, please do so. If not . . . .
I'll restate my arguement.
That does not appear to be the case Sylas. Your interpretation seems to come appart. It allows for no spacific beginning of creation. If you place the beginning of creation at vrs 2, vrs 1 merely being an introduction of things to come, you are already picking up the account after the globe already came into existence:
vrs 2
"Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of [the] watery deep; [but it already existed] and God's active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters."
When God's active force began the six creative periods, the globe already existed. That is why the creation account picks up in the middle with a primeval soup (watery deep, vrs 2). If you are saying the watery deep was the beginning, you omit the substantial developments leading up to that point, and in essence have no beginning.
My understanding places a beginning of universal matter in vrs 1. Only that can allow for a primordial soup in vrs 2 and still assume we have a beginning.
cheers -- rickrose
Gen 1:1,2 -- the content. Can you reply concisely without alluding to several million things.
rickrose
This message has been edited by Rick Rose, 05-17-2004 11:20 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Sylas, posted 05-17-2004 11:50 PM Sylas has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Sylas, posted 05-18-2004 1:34 AM Rick Rose has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 65 of 114 (108954)
05-18-2004 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Rick Rose
05-17-2004 11:54 PM


Re: More to it than meets the eye.
Rick Rose
First person, God speaking to Job.
Job 38:
31 Can you tie fast the bonds of the Kimah constellation,
Or can you loosen the very cords of the Kesil constellation?
How do you get physical forces binding stellar matter from this? And the stars of constellations are never in physical contact with one another. Stars within contellations are seperated by light years,often hundreds of light years.They are only apparently within the same constellation because we classify them as such.
The Apostle Paul wrote at 1cor 15:41
41 The glory of the sun is one sort, and the glory of the moon is another, and the glory of the stars is another; in fact, star differs from star in glory.
How did a man two thousand years ago accurately state that stars differ in glory. Only in recent history have scientist figured that out.
According to the blue letter bible the word glory this is the different biblical uses of the word "doxa".
1) opinion, judgment, view
2) opinion, estimate, whether good or bad concerning someone
a) in the NT always a good opinion concerning one, resulting
in praise, honour, and glory
3) splendour, brightness
a) of the moon, sun, stars
b) magnificence, excellence, preeminence, dignity, grace
c) majesty
1) a thing belonging to God
a) the kingly majesty which belongs to him as supreme ruler, majesty in the sense of the absolute perfection of the deity
2) a thing belonging to Christ
a) the kingly majesty of the Messiah
b) the absolutely perfect inward or personal excellency of Christ; the majesty
3) of the angels
a) as apparent in their exterior brightness
4) a most glorious condition, most exalted state
a) of that condition with God the Father in heaven to which Christ was raised after he had achieved his work on earth
b) the glorious condition of blessedness into which is appointed and promised that true Christians shall enter after their Saviour's return from heaven
Of these definitions brightness is the only measurement of stars that could qualify as a measurement science applies to stars. Now let us insert the word brightness into the verse and see what marvelous revelation moses had.
Original
The glory of the sun is one sort, and the glory of the moon is another, and the glory of the stars is another; in fact, star differs from star in glory.
Susbtituted
The brightness of the sun is one sort, and the brightness of the moon is another, and the brightness of the stars is another; in fact, star differs from star in brightness.
Wow! Staggering eh?

"For the mind of man is far from the nature of clear and equal glass,wherein the beams of things should reflect according to their true incidence;nay,it is rather like an enchanted glass,full of superstition and imposture.if it be not delivered and reduced." Sir Francis Bacon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Rick Rose, posted 05-17-2004 11:54 PM Rick Rose has not replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 66 of 114 (108966)
05-18-2004 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Rick Rose
05-18-2004 12:09 AM


Re: More to it than meets the eye.
Rick Rose writes:
You have answered in a shotgun style, not discussion replying to the content of my post. If you are able to reply to the content, please do so. If not . . . .
On the contrary; I have attempted to give a focused reply on the central point, rather than attempt to refute in detail every aspect of your post. This is the "rifle" style; where "shotgun" style is IMO the style where you write a long response with hundreds of quoted extracts and try to cover everything. Both styles have advantages and disadvantages. The shotgun approach in which you cover everything leads to exponential growth in post sizes and loss of focus. The rifle approach I had adopted previously runs the risk of missing points which the other poster would like answered.
My previous Message 62 is focused on what I consider to be the main point. It remains as my contribution to the discussion. This more detailed reply (IMO) is already implicit in that first post. I don't actually say anything particularly new in what follows here.
Since you explicitly request it, I will spell out my response to each paragraph of your post. Let me say out the outset that I consider this reply to be the shotgun approach, and mostly an inefficient waste of time. Still, if it helps then it is worthwhile.
Bear in mind that I'm not trying to persuade you to drop your own views. That is rarely a useful objective. I'm content to present my views side by side with yours for anyone who is reading; and thus I will tend to focus on what I think is the main issue.
Anyhow, here is a more comprehensive reply, if it helps.
That does not appear to be the case Sylas. Your interpretation seems to come appart.
You have given no argument for that assertion. I disagree with you. My interpretation is both internally consistent, and (as I said last time) the same interpretation which has been used through most of history.
It allows for no spacific beginning of creation. If you place the beginning of creation at vrs 2, vrs 1 merely being an introduction of things to come, you are already picking up the account after the globe already came into existence:
That is false. My interpretation is that verse 1 states that in the beginning God created heaven and earth; and the rest of the chapter shows how He did it. The initial state is one of chaos, which is represented by water. You are assuming that the globe is in existence; but that is the very point at issue. As I said last time, I claim that the Genesis account is given in the context of a cosmology which does not model the Earth as a globe at all. It is an essential feature of the account that it describes ordering of the entire cosmos from an initial state of unformed chaos.
vrs 2
"Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of [the] watery deep; [but it already existed] and God's active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters."
This represents the initial state of unformed chaos. There is no mention of globes, and I believe it is a misleading projection to interpret this as a strictly localised vision of one little watery planet within a much larger cosmos. This is intended by the biblical writer to represent a state of unformed chaos for the whole cosmos; and (as I suggested last time) the imposition of modern science onto the account loses this essential aspect of the biblical story.
When God's active force began the six creative periods, the globe already existed. That is why the creation account picks up in the middle with a primeval soup (watery deep, vrs 2). If you are saying the watery deep was the beginning, you omit the substantial developments leading up to that point, and in essence have no beginning.
As I said in my previous post, the error is in thinking in terms of globes at all. That is not the correct cosmological context for this account. I do say that the watery deep was the beginning, and this does not omit developments leading up to that point, because there are no developments leading up to that point within the proper context of this story.
You can disagree; but you cannot call my view inconsistent or falling apart because I fail to account for your view. I am saying that your view is completely the wrong approach for understanding what the bible is saying here. The watery deep is the beginning state in the biblical cosmology. That this is not the same as the scientific account is not important, because the bible is not a science textbook, and the significance and intent of the story is not about getting empirical details. It is a theological treatise on monotheism.
My understanding places a beginning of universal matter in vrs 1. Only that can allow for a primordial soup in vrs 2 and still assume we have a beginning.
I know that you have some kind of preceding creation of matter and whatnot in verse 1. I disagree with you. I do not think that is the intent at all, and, as I suggested last time, it has never been taken in those terms until comparatively recently, when people tried to force fit the Genesis account with a modern cosmological context that was completely unfamiliar to the readers and writers of the bible.
All this is simply spelling out details that I think are adequately covered in my focussed response of Message 62.
Best wishes -- Sylas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Rick Rose, posted 05-18-2004 12:09 AM Rick Rose has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Rick Rose, posted 05-18-2004 1:29 PM Sylas has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 67 of 114 (108973)
05-18-2004 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Rick Rose
05-17-2004 10:46 PM


Re: The events of the fourth day in Genesis.
I have read post 56 and later posts. I note that you are not engaging with the fact that Genesis 1 has explicit mentions of the creation of both Heaven and Earth. It is quite clear that you are trying to fit Genesis 1 to a modern understanding - and placing textual considerations secondary to that task.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Rick Rose, posted 05-17-2004 10:46 PM Rick Rose has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by cromwell, posted 05-18-2004 7:04 AM PaulK has replied

  
cromwell
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 114 (108977)
05-18-2004 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by PaulK
05-18-2004 3:26 AM


Re: The events of the fourth day in Genesis.
Rick Roses analysis is quite clear.Its through his understanding of a God of order that the Genesis account is spelled out.So many here are pulling out single scriptures and not looking at the context of the whole creation.It has been explained that the heavens and the earth were created,then the formation of the planet earth is prepared for Gods living creatures.The light is diffused gradually so that life can take place.This fits in with the Hebrew translations and a simple logical procedure of creation.However a scientific explanation cannot give a true determination of events and we don't propose this.It takes the intervention of Gods power,his active force (Hebrew 'ruach'.... the true meaning of holy spirit) to control matters.So we cannot explain it by scientific matters alone.All things are possible with God (Mt 19:26) How creation truly came about is not known in detail.Jehovah God only gives a brief outline,but that outline is within reason.
Jehovah God could of had the Genesis account written through inspiration to Moses as a clearer narrative,but God did not intend to have only the intelligent come to him to attain salvation.This would give an unfair advantage to the smart,and the dumb could not come to understand God.God wants to conduct matters fairly.
He deliberately had Genesis and the bible inspirationally written so that it becomes a matter of faith in believing him and an emotional condition of heart-felt love to come to find out about his ways.We don't need science to prove his existance.Coming to know God by indepth study of the bible is enough to show what he is all about.
Heavens.
The creation of the Heavens and earth in Genesis encompass all matter.Stars nebulae,galaxies,protons,electrons and the elements e.t.c.
The Hebrew word "shamayim "(always in the plural), which is rendered heaven(s), seems to have the basic sense of that which is high or lofty. (Ps 103:11; Pr 25:3; Isa 55:9) The etymology of the Greek word for heaven (ouranos) is uncertain.
The full scope of the physical heavens is embraced by the original-language term. The context usually provides sufficient information to determine which area of the physical heavens is meant.
There are many meanings for heavens in the bible.At Genesis it is obviously talking about space and the stars within.
The physical heavens extend through earth’s atmosphere and beyond to the regions of outer space with their stellar bodies, the fact that the heavens mean the matter and stars e.t.c. is born out by other scriptures...
Psalm 8:3 When I see your heavens, the works of your fingers,The moon and the stars that you have prepared.
Deutronomy 4:19 and that you may not raise your eyes to the heavens and indeed see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the army of the heavens, and actually get seduced and bow down to them and serve them, which Jehovah your God has apportioned to all the peoples under the whole heavens.T
he logic is that God would not have created the heavens with the earth stuck in the middle of emptiness.The stars would have been formed at the same time.
Are we to analyse in the same way that Genesis has been analysed. the meaning of Jesus words at John 2:18...
"Therefore, in answer, the Jews said to him: What sign have you to show us,since you are doing these things? 19 In answer Jesus said to them:
>> Break down this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.<< 20 Therefore the Jews said: This temple was built in forty-six years, and will you raise it up in three days?
The literal account above has to be taken as figurative speech.Likewise the figurative meaning of light and creation e.t.c. within Genesis has to be taken into consideration.
Is the existance of God improbable or impossible to the sceptics?
The impossible,but undeniable reality....The eternal everlasting and infinate stretching out of "space" exists.Incomprehensible but real.
The universe has no end,or that the realm beyond the known belief of an existant finite curved space universe has no end.
Liken the existance of the reality of the impossible endlessness that actually exists to your ideas that God is impossible,then you might be able to conclude that God can exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by PaulK, posted 05-18-2004 3:26 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by PaulK, posted 05-18-2004 7:29 AM cromwell has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 69 of 114 (108983)
05-18-2004 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by cromwell
05-18-2004 7:04 AM


Re: The events of the fourth day in Genesis.
It is clear that his analysis rests heavily on his choice of translation (many do not link the two verses in the way that the NIV does). It is clear also that it is based on reading current knowledge into Genesis. It is also clear that he is the one taking individual verses out of context.
His analysis has yet to even consider Genesis 1:4, nor does he offer any basis for assuming that the sun was created prior to the first day other than that it is reasonable given what we know now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by cromwell, posted 05-18-2004 7:04 AM cromwell has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by cromwell, posted 05-18-2004 10:10 AM PaulK has replied

  
cromwell
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 114 (109003)
05-18-2004 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by PaulK
05-18-2004 7:29 AM


Re: The events of the fourth day in Genesis.
We all rest on our translation of literally everything in life.I am of the same religion as Rick Rose.All in our religion are united universally in our beliefs.
The bible clearly gives the sense that the Sun and accompanying stars were created at Genesis 1:1
What do you think the heavens at Genesis 1:1 mean?..Empty space with the planet earth somehow keeping its form in an emptiness with no atomic matter surrounding it? How would the earth have stayed in its position without the material of the universe,gravity e.t.c.physical laws to hold it in place.This is not logical,an earth created in a vacuumous void.Once we realise this cannot be,then the next step is to be reasonable and assume that the heavens consisted of atomic matter at that time the earth was created in Genesis 1:1 and the stars,planets e.t.c. are made up of atomic material.So reason should rule the day and the heavens at Genesis incorperated the universe full of millions upon millions of stars as we see it today.
Have you read the posts prior to 56?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by PaulK, posted 05-18-2004 7:29 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by PaulK, posted 05-18-2004 10:28 AM cromwell has not replied
 Message 92 by doctrbill, posted 05-19-2004 9:54 PM cromwell has replied
 Message 93 by doctrbill, posted 05-19-2004 10:31 PM cromwell has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 71 of 114 (109009)
05-18-2004 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by cromwell
05-18-2004 10:10 AM


Re: The events of the fourth day in Genesis.
The bible clearly gives the sense that the Sun and accompanying stars were created at Genesis 1:1
I absolutely disagree with this. Please provided evidence *from the text* to support your claim.
I have already explained that I reject the idea that Genesis 1:1 refers to events prior to the first day which renders your argument moot. Even so it is clearly based not on the text but on current scientific knowledge. The very nature of your argument proves that your claim is false. If the Bible clearly gave such a sense then you would be arguing from the Bible - not ignoring inconvenient verses like Genesis 1:4 (which is hard to forgive in someone so keen to accuse others of taking verses out of context).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by cromwell, posted 05-18-2004 10:10 AM cromwell has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 72 of 114 (109036)
05-18-2004 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Rick Rose
05-17-2004 11:54 PM


Re: More to it than meets the eye.
RickRose writes:
The bible is not a science textbook, but where it touches on science it never errs.
Would you care to comment on the modern incidence of leprosy infecting houses, and causing "reddish or greenish strakes?" It did that in Leviticus chapter 14. Do you have documentation of Mycobacterium leprae being cultured on plaster? Or even on wool or linen? No microbiologist has apparently been able to grow 'em on agar-agar yet.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Rick Rose, posted 05-17-2004 11:54 PM Rick Rose has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Rick Rose, posted 05-18-2004 1:32 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Rick Rose
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 114 (109040)
05-18-2004 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Sylas
05-18-2004 1:34 AM


Re: More to it than meets the eye.
Sylus writes
Bear in mind that I'm not trying to persuade you to drop your own views. That is rarely a useful objective. I'm content to present my views side by side with yours for anyone who is reading; and thus I will tend to focus on what I think is the main issue.
Yours is a liberal viewpoint which I must praise. I too am content to post mine side by side with yours.
Sylus writes
My interpretation is that verse 1 states that in the beginning God created heaven and earth; and the rest of the chapter shows how He did it.
Of course this is a point of difference. You believe that Gen 1:1 is simply an introduction to what follows. I believe that it tersly decribes the creation of the cosmos, at which point in vrs 2,3, God begins the conversion of earth, a small part of the vast cosmos, into something habitable.
Sylas writes
I claim that the Genesis account is given in the context of a cosmology which does not model the Earth as a globe at all.
The fact is that earth is modeled as a globe, as was the visible moon in the account.
For those who believe in the bible’s inspiration, they may take into account other verses that refer to creation such as the following.
Isa 40:21b,22
Have you not applied understanding from the foundations of the earth? There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers, the One who is stretching out the heavens just as a fine gauze, who spreads them out like a tent in which to dwell.
The Hebrew word chugh here translated circle, may also be rendered sphere. (A Concordance of the Hebrew and Chaldee Scriptures, by B. Davidson)
Two points are made by Isaiah:
1. His argument goes back to the foundations of the earth (creation)
2. Sandwhtched beteween the foundation of the earth and the creation of the universe, the prophet describes the earth’s form, a circle or sphere.
Sylas writes
The initial state is one of chaos, which is represented by water.
Appropriately Psalm 33:6 says: By the word of Jehovah the heavens
themselves were made, and by the spirit of his mouth all their army. While the earth was yet formless and waste, with darkness upon the surface of the watery deep, it was God’s active force that was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters. (Ge 1:2) Thus, God used his active force, or spirit (Heb., ruach), to accomplish his creative purpose. The things he has created testify not only to his power but also to his Godship. (Jer 10:12; Ro 1:19, 20) And, as
Jehovah is a God, not of disorder, but of peace (1Co 14:33), his creative work is marked with orderliness rather than chaos or chance. Jehovah reminded Job that He had taken specific steps in founding the earth and barricading the sea and indicated that there exist statutes of the heavens. (Job 38:1, 4-11, 31-33)
Furthermore, God’s creative and other works are perfect.De 32:4; Ec 3:14.
--INSIGHT INTO THE SCRIPTURES, VOLUME ONE
Sylas writes
You are assuming that the globe is in existence; but that is the very point at issue.
Yes, it is a main point at issue. And it gives me great pleasure to present to you a view which you were not familiar with, as you so said you could not find anywhere in your theological studies where someone has equated Gen 1:1 with the creation of the cosmos as I have. Each one must determine this by his own belief system.
Sylas writes
. . . and (as I suggested last time) the imposition of modern science onto the account loses this essential aspect of the biblical story.
To the contrary, the juxtaposition of the Genisis account and modern science credits both in this most astounding duet.
The science of mathematical probability offers striking proof that the Genesis creation account must have come from a source with knowledge of the events. The account lists 10 major stages in this order: (1) a beginning; (2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water; (3) light; (4) an expanse or atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6) land plants; (7) sun,
moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning; (8) sea monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame beasts, mammals; (10) man. Science agrees that these stages occurred in this general order. What are the chances that the writer of Genesis just guessed this order? The same as if you picked at random the numbers 1 to 10 from a box, and drew them in consecutive order. The chances of doing this on your first try are 1 in 3,628,800! So, to say the writer just happened to list the foregoing events in the right order without
getting the facts from somewhere is not realistic. -- Life - How Did It Get Here? By evolution or by creation?
Sylas writes
As I said in my previous post, the error is in thinking in terms of globes at all. That is not the correct cosmological context for this account. I do say that the watery deep was the beginning, and this does not omit developments leading up to that point, because there are no developments leading up to that point within the proper context of this story.
In the above statement you take oppisite positions. On the one hand you tenably acknowledge the watery deep. And, yes, modern science also acknowledges earth’s distant past likewise. How, then, is it that the Genesis writer could know so much so long ago, and not know about globes. You might as well try to convince your audience that a writer doesn’t know what a verb is. Perhaps your cosmological view of Genesis is not shared by it’s author.
Sylus, I know you will respond, and I welcome your response. However, I may not respond to material on Gen 1:1,2 again. We will have hashed it out.
But I would like to continue verse by verse through the rest of the account as it bears on the thread. "Where does it say in Gen that the earth is six thousand years old." Of course only if you wish to oblige.
Shalom,
rickrose
This message has been edited by Rick Rose, 05-18-2004 12:41 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Sylas, posted 05-18-2004 1:34 AM Sylas has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by jar, posted 05-18-2004 2:01 PM Rick Rose has replied
 Message 77 by Sylas, posted 05-18-2004 2:54 PM Rick Rose has replied
 Message 78 by PaulK, posted 05-18-2004 3:08 PM Rick Rose has not replied

  
Rick Rose
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 114 (109041)
05-18-2004 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Coragyps
05-18-2004 1:00 PM


Re: More to it than meets the eye.
Deeply engaged with Sylus. Perhaps we will discuss your points in the future. Remember, "where does it say in Gen that the earth is six thousand years old." You may want to begin a new thread.
rickrose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Coragyps, posted 05-18-2004 1:00 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 75 of 114 (109047)
05-18-2004 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Rick Rose
05-18-2004 1:29 PM


Re: More to it than meets the eye.
You injected...
The science of mathematical probability offers striking proof that the Genesis creation account must have come from a source with knowledge of the events. The account lists 10 major stages in this order: (1) a beginning; (2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water; (3) light; (4) an expanse or atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6) land plants; (7) sun,
moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning; (8) sea monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame beasts, mammals; (10) man. Science agrees that these stages occurred in this general order. What are the chances that the writer of Genesis just guessed this order? The same as if you picked at random the numbers 1 to 10 from a box, and drew them in consecutive order. The chances of doing this on your first try are 1 in 3,628,800! So, to say the writer just happened to list the foregoing events in the right order without
getting the facts from somewhere is not realistic. -- Life - How Did It Get Here? By evolution or by creation?
The problem is that that ordering is nonsense and completely wrong. It is simply something that did not happen and so to ascribe some great significance to it means nothing.
First, if there is "a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water" then there is an atmosphere. If it is ensrouded in heavy gasses and water, then there is an atmosphere. No way to get around that. Please look at Venus.
Second, if the Earth even exists, then the Sun must already be there so there is already light. No need to create it later.
"(4) an expanse or atmosphere"
Redundant. This step is already explicit way back in step 2.
"(6) land plants"
Once again, the order is all wrong. Land plants came long, long after the seas were filled with both animals and plants.
"(7) sun"
Bet them land plants were doing great without the sun for photosynthisis.
"(8) sea monsters and flying creatures;"
Again, the order is once again totally wrong. Sea monsters came much earlier in the cycle.
Finally, the most absurd statement of all...
Science agrees that these stages occurred in this general order.
That is simply a nonsense. Period. Don't know who told you that but they were lying to you.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Rick Rose, posted 05-18-2004 1:29 PM Rick Rose has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Rick Rose, posted 05-18-2004 2:18 PM jar has not replied
 Message 79 by cromwell, posted 05-18-2004 3:08 PM jar has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024