Genesis: is it to be taken literally?

Alrighty, then. Will do.

quote:

---

some of it is just about counting things.

---

Oh, great! I knew I shoulda watched more Sesame Street (just kidding )

You are assuming that the Creator cannot create light independently of the sources of light with which we are familiar. The Bible is clear. He created light and then the sun and stars. Perhaps, God Himself was the source of light at that time.Regardless, how can I limit the Creator's actions by my understanding of how things work NOW, when conditions would necessarily be very different during the actual Creation process? Whenever is an automobile on an assembly line except during it's initial fabrication? (Admittedly a poor analogy.) Things are different during creation. And we are part of the creation with very limited knowledge not only of ourselves but also of everything around us.This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 11-29-2004 09:45 PM

Well, we have a pretty good knowledge of how a solar system would come about and there are even some that we can observe in various states of development. There are also the rules that seem to govern everything we can see in the universe. And all of that evidence, evidence not written by men, shows that the account in Genesis is simply wrong.For the earth to exist, the sun must have been there first. Light arrived at the earth 8 minutes or so after the Sun began. The Bible is clearly wrong. It simply does not correspond to the record GOD left us. I gotta belief GOD before I believe what men wrote. But we also have thousand of years worth of gained knowledge compared to the Bronze age folk that were telling the Genesis creation myth around their campfires. Even then, they had many different stories. Genesis itself contains two completely different and mutually exclusive tales.The story that GOD actually left us, the Universe we live in, is remarkably consistent.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Jar,You apparently believe in a Creator, which I consider the only logical choice considering the complexity of matter and life (life being far more complex than matter).You may have different reasons for reaching your conclusion that there is a Creator, but those are mine.That you consider the universe to be sort of a "book" left by the Creator is a rather neat analogy with which I quite agree. The Bible agrees with you on this one point, if no other. I just wanted to point out this area of agreement. To me, so far, the stories of solar system development seem quite ridiculous; these modern speculations are the fireside stories, imo (I'll probably get more reading assignments from this assertion ) Where can I find more information about this? I seriously doubt this claim. (MORE reading assignments...) Yes, we do. But regarding one-time, non-repeatable, historical events (i.e., the creation of the universe, this solar system, and life ~ though it be created as stated in Genesis or as thought by modern scientists), we have only speculations and, at best, models. All such exploration is, necessarily, outside the realm of strict science (as I understand it), though not necessarily outside the realm of logic.In this realm, particularly, our knowledge will ever be severely limited. But I also contend that we know only a little about the universe about us, it being so far beyond our reach.This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 11-29-2004 10:51 PM

Well, let me give this a try but within the limits of the thread. I don't know where you got that idea. Folk here would NEVER bury you with outside reading acounts, would they? There sure is a bunch of information available though.Let me try to stay in the lines mostly. If we look out into space, would you agree that we are looking back in time?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Jar,I posted before I was done... I have come across the two-Genesis-creation-accounts before.It is chapters 1 and 2, right? Why exactly do you think these are two different accounts?(Were I more familiar with the issue I could probably rattle them off, but you are probably more familiar with this than I am...though I MAY be able to resolve any perceived differences after they are pointed out. So, if you are able to rattle them off (i.e., if it isn't something you gotta go research), go ahead. If you are not that familiar with it, but wish to discuss it; perhaps we can over time.)

OOOPPS!Reading assignment.Check out Message 1 and Message 1 to start with.One other reading assignment, if you choose to accept it, is to go to the Post of the Month forum. Start at the first month which I think was about a year ago, and read through the offerings. They will help bring you up to date with some of the best stuff that has been posted here.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Due to the fact that light travels at a constant velocity (so it appears)?Two things:

Can light accelerate under certain conditions? (that's an honest, not leading, question ~ I would think it could)

Are you assuming that the Creator of light cannot do things with the light that we do not see it do now that He is done setting the system up?

​

My answer is: yes, but I don't think this proves that since the light source is x-lightyears away the light must have required x-years getting to earth.

​

The assumption is that light travelled all the way from the source to the earth under conditions now existing, but I see no reason why a creator couldn't simply put the light in place or cause it to go faster initially so that it reached the earth in one day. I do not see the Creator bound by ANY laws of physics.

Wouldn't that be a lie, though? And isn't that a kind of stupid useless wasteful thing to do? If God wanted pretty stars in the sky, a series of reflective asteroids would have sufficed.Oh, right. The LORD moves in mysterious ways. I guess there's nothing you can't have God accomplish if he's exempted from the laws of physics, and the laws of sense besides.

Well, I'm sorry. If that is your position then there is no point of continuing the discussion.You are proposing a universe totally arbitrary, one where some cosmic joker would falsify the account just to fool a minor species only lately come on the scene.Sorry, I just can't see any possiblity of ever reaching any understanding.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

no, it cannot. the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant. it can however be slowed down by traveling through a medium. we assume that creator has created a system that operates under natural laws, and that he would not be out to decieve us. no, but his creations ARE.

Well, if it involves reading assignments, which I certainly don't mind, it will be a slower discussion.I am here, not so much to show off my knowledge and logic capabilities, but to see where what I say might be weak in logic.I have immersed myself in creationists' materials...can those explanations and assertions take a little scrutiny...I think most of them can...if I have been told something incorrect, it will be helpful for me to have that pointed out, won't it? Especially, if I'm gonna go around talking about it to others.Also, after a few discussion with atheists, agnostics and such, I have found they are concerned about some things which I never bother considering.No, they haven't swayed me. I just think that SOME of their concerns MIGHT have answers. I figure it wouldn't hurt me to discover their questions, as I cannot even hope to find an answer to a question which I do not know.

If this is your theology, it you postulate a God who can do anything and would willfully set intellectual traps for us then there is, of course, no arguing with that. Given your assumption about the power and nature of God the only accomodation would be to preface all of science with "God fools us into thinking that...".This is, of course, the only answer that those who both insist on the literistic interpretation of the Bible and do actually get a tiny hint of the evidence against that interpretation. This is also very poor theology and rejected by the majority of theologians.This is one of the reasons why the majority of Christians disagree with you and why some would say you belong, not to a branch of Christianity, but to a cult that brings upon true Christianity Disrespect, distaste and frequently amused laughter.

Now you have, if you are intellectually honest, to figure out how to filter out the honest attempts to answer questions about the natural world and the lies (if willful) or untruths (if resulting from error).There are, posting here, experts in a number of the fields of science. It will be a problem for you, but I can assure you that there will be no willful untruths given to you.I can also assure you that there are far to many cases where the creationists source do actually lie.Perhaps rather than get deep into physics that might be hard for most of us you could pick some simpler cases where relatively simple math would be adequate.There are many good reasons why we do not have to just "assume" that the speed of light has been constant for at least long enough to put the young earth idea to a peaceful rest. Some are more accessible than others.However, I suggest that some of the dates and dating issues might be simpler. (there can be some physics there too but maybe it can be put off for awhile). The flood and it's sea shells is another one.Now you have to sort out one from the other.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-29-2004 11:38 PM

well, hey, god can do anything, right?seriously, this brings up a good point. short the sun/moon being created after light and dark, everything is set up in a hierarchical order in genesis 1.we start with everything being water, and god. god makes light with which to see. then god makes a little bubble in the water, separating the waters. this allows for dry land, which allows for plants, which allows for animals, which allows for man.the problem comes in at genesis 2. man is made first, before plants and before animals. and everything is made on a sort of trial and error basis: first man has plants to grow, but he needs something else. so god makes him animals. but that's not quite right. so god makes him a woman.now, i don't mean to debate these two here. we have another thread for that here: http://EvC Forum: Genesis Creation Stories: Sequence Contradictions? -->EvC Forum: Genesis Creation Stories: Sequence Contradictions?but it does present a problem. while neither jives with evolution, it does suggest that the person who put both stories in the same book, NEXT TO EACH OTHER, didn't care that there problems between the two.so, in short, i do see reason not to take genesis literally. and my evidence is the book of genesis.