Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Unacknowledged Accuracy of Genesis 1
danny
Inactive Junior Member


Message 1 of 302 (350190)
09-19-2006 6:26 AM


Mainstream science has given us a pretty comprehensive theory of universal evolution from the Big Bang to the appearence of modern man. The biblical equivalent of this theory appears in the first chapter of the Book of Genesis. This biblical theory is presented in large brushstrokes but the similarities between itself and scientific theory are quite uncanny. As it stands, the chronology of universal presented in Genesis is as follows:
Light - the Big Bang
Firmament - the expanse/expansion of the Universe
Earth
Seas
Vegetation
Sun, Moon and stars
Oceanic Life
Land based Animals
Mankind
There are obvious and striking parallels between the scientific and biblical theories with one exception - the creation of the sun, moon and stars AFTER the creation of earth. I would like to demonstrate that this difference can be rectified and that it has occurred through not taking the text of Genesis literally enough!
The biblical passage in question is verses 14 - 16 of Genesis 1:
"God said, Let there be lights in the vault of the heavens to separate day from night, and let them serve as signs for both festivals and for seasons and years ... God made two great lights, the greater to govern the day and the lesser to govern the night; he also made the stars."
It is easy to see why this chapter has been interpreted as the creation of the sun (the greater light), the moon (the lesser light) and the stars. However, on closer reading it is clear that this passage refers to the creation of various 'lights'. These 'lights' have specific functions:- "to separate day from night" and to "serve as signs for both festivals and for seasons and years".
To my point - the light that governs the day is not the sun, it is Daylight and the light that governs the night is Moonlight, these are the lights that "separate day from night". The lights that "serve as signs" are, not just any old stars, but the stars we know as the Zodiac. Here it is - the phenomena of Daylight, Moonlight and the Zodiac are not, as one might think, created by the sun, moon and stars. They are created by Atmosphere.
Although the sun shines on the moon there is no daylight because there is no atmosphere. Similarly, if you stand on the moon and gaze at the stars you will not be able to discern the stars of the Zodiac because the moon does not have the atmosphere to filter out the weaker starlight leaving us with the familiar patterns of the Zodiac.
In short - the passage above is not about the creation of sun, moon and stars but of atmosphere. The creation of atmosphere is an absolutely fundamental aspect of our being here.
Now the chronology in Genesis is as follows:
Let there be light - the Big Bang
firmament - the expanse/expansion of the universe
firmament - all celestaial bodies (galaxies, stars etc.)
earth
seas
vegetation
atmosphere
oceanic life
land based life
mankind
In general, the similarities between the biblical and scientific theories of universal evolution are uncanny. Are these similarities a product of my deranged imaginings and, if not, how did they come about.
Edited by AdminModulous, : Just acknowledging the inaccuracy in the spelling of the Thread Title. Corrected Gensis1 to Genesis 1

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminJar, posted 09-20-2006 3:15 PM danny has not replied
 Message 3 by Chiroptera, posted 09-20-2006 3:29 PM danny has not replied
 Message 4 by Chiroptera, posted 09-20-2006 3:31 PM danny has replied
 Message 5 by Brian, posted 09-20-2006 4:31 PM danny has replied
 Message 6 by PaulK, posted 09-20-2006 6:45 PM danny has replied
 Message 7 by Gary, posted 09-20-2006 7:06 PM danny has replied
 Message 8 by sidelined, posted 09-20-2006 7:32 PM danny has not replied
 Message 19 by PaulK, posted 09-21-2006 9:17 AM danny has not replied
 Message 20 by Jon, posted 09-21-2006 9:36 AM danny has not replied
 Message 21 by Jon, posted 09-21-2006 9:46 AM danny has not replied
 Message 23 by iceage, posted 09-24-2006 4:03 PM danny has replied
 Message 56 by Equinox, posted 10-12-2006 2:05 PM danny has not replied
 Message 100 by jimfgerard, posted 02-03-2007 10:23 PM danny has not replied
 Message 129 by Juraikken, posted 04-15-2007 9:16 PM danny has not replied
 Message 136 by IamJoseph, posted 06-30-2007 9:32 AM danny has not replied

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 302 (350725)
09-20-2006 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by danny
09-19-2006 6:26 AM


Promoted
Promoted by AdminPD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by danny, posted 09-19-2006 6:26 AM danny has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 302 (350729)
09-20-2006 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by danny
09-19-2006 6:26 AM


deleted repeated post
Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by danny, posted 09-19-2006 6:26 AM danny has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 302 (350730)
09-20-2006 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by danny
09-19-2006 6:26 AM


quote:
with one exception
Two, actually. Genesis also claims that land plants were created before sea creatures.
-
quote:
They are created by Atmosphere.
So you are saying the atmosphere was created after plants? That is still a problem.
-
quote:
Although the sun shines on the moon there is no daylight because there is no atmosphere.
This is false. When the sun shines on the moon there is plenty of daylight.
-
quote:
Similarly, if you stand on the moon and gaze at the stars you will not be able to discern the stars of the Zodiac because the moon does not have the atmosphere to filter out the weaker starlight leaving us with the familiar patterns of the Zodiac.
This, too, is false. The amount of weak star light that is filtered out by the earth's atmosphere is not enough to obscure the zodiac. Look at the signs of the zodiac that light in the Milky Way -- the signs are very clear there, even though there are more stars than other parts of the zodiac.
-
quote:
Are these similarities a product of my deranged imaginings
I don't want to be unkind, but I just wonder why it is so important to reconcile the Genesis creation myth with science that was discovered 2000 years or more after it was written.

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." -- George Bernard Shaw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by danny, posted 09-19-2006 6:26 AM danny has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by danny, posted 09-21-2006 12:14 AM Chiroptera has replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 5 of 302 (350753)
09-20-2006 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by danny
09-19-2006 6:26 AM


Hi,
I may be missing something, perhaps you can help.
You seem to have outlined the Bible version but haven't presented the evidence that supports the scientific version that you claim parallels Genesis so well.
How do us unscientific types know what the scientists say the evolution model is, and why they are convinced of its accuracy?
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by danny, posted 09-19-2006 6:26 AM danny has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by danny, posted 09-21-2006 2:51 AM Brian has not replied

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


Message 6 of 302 (350789)
09-20-2006 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by danny
09-19-2006 6:26 AM


There are a number of issues. Essentially you are taking a very selective reading of Genesis 1 ignoring parts that don't fit so well.
But looking at the issues you raise about plants and the sun.
Without an atmosphere light will still reach the surface of the earth - in fact MORE light will, because the atmosphere filters out some of it and diffuses it. How can filtering and diffusing light be described as creating a light ?
How can plants survive without an atmosphere ?
If the daylight was created in the fourth day, why does Genesis 1:5 talk about day and night, evening and morning ?
God called the light day, and the darkness He called night And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
So why should we not say that this light is daylight ? Is that not what Genesis actually says that it is ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by danny, posted 09-19-2006 6:26 AM danny has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by danny, posted 09-21-2006 3:05 AM PaulK has replied
 Message 12 by danny, posted 09-21-2006 3:06 AM PaulK has not replied
 Message 13 by danny, posted 09-21-2006 3:11 AM PaulK has not replied

Gary
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 302 (350795)
09-20-2006 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by danny
09-19-2006 6:26 AM


Why must the Genesis account of the creation of the universe be reconciled with scientific findings? We don't have to stretch either the Genesis story or the history of the Earth as scientists have figured it out so far if we simply take Genesis for what it is: a creation myth written by people who were unable to test their claims in a scientific manner, but who wanted some sort of story to explain how things came to be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by danny, posted 09-19-2006 6:26 AM danny has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by danny, posted 09-21-2006 3:15 AM Gary has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 8 of 302 (350806)
09-20-2006 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by danny
09-19-2006 6:26 AM


danny
Light - the Big Bang
Light did not occur at the time of the big bang but some 300,000 yeasrs later when the temperature had cooled sufficiently to allow nuclei and electrons to form atoms and allow the radiation of electromagnetic energy.
Firmament - the expanse/expansion of the Universe
From Genesis 1:6-8
God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate between water and water.” So God made the firmament, and separated the waters which were beneath the firmament and the waters which were above the firmament. And it was so. God called to the firmament” “Heaven.” And there was evening and there was morning, a second day
Since it would appear that the firmament divides the waters above {clouds that produce the rain} from the waters below { the oceans and lakes and rivers},It is unreasonable to equate this with the expansion of the universe at all. The expansion of the universe has no reference whatsoever to water.
Earth
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Before the earth had formed there were waters?
Also we have this
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And this was done before light was spoken into existence. Yet ,since the consensus in science is that the planets,including earth, were formed through the production of heavy elements forged in stars and supernova this cannot be true. It is out of order.
Well that is a start into the error that this OP has produced on its first 3 arguements and If need be we can further elaborate on these as well as discuss other inconsistencies too.
Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by danny, posted 09-19-2006 6:26 AM danny has not replied

danny
Inactive Junior Member


Message 9 of 302 (350877)
09-21-2006 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Chiroptera
09-20-2006 3:31 PM


I can see this is going to be a long haul.Hairsplitting,pedantism and sidetracking seem tobe the orderof the day but I will try to deal with your "points" but first may I ask a favour of you.
There is a passage in Genesis1 that deals with the creation of sun, moon and stars. I have put forward the interpretation that it actually deals with the creation of atmosphere. I would ask you to treat this passage as a set of data, evaluate the interpretation I have put on it and present arguments for and against (in your case 'against' - it is strange to come across so many insecure scientists )
As for your points:
"Two, actually. Genesis also claims that land plants were created beforesea creatures" - pedantism
"So you are saying the atmosphere was created after plants? That is still a problem" - the blue skiesof Daylight indicate not just any old atmosphere but a breathable one
"This is false. When the sun shineson the moon there is plenty of daylight." - there is a famous photograph of an astronaut stood on the moon. It is obvious from the shadows on the ground that the sun is directly oiverhead yet the backgound sky is jet black
The last point about the Zodiac I will leave open for now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Chiroptera, posted 09-20-2006 3:31 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Chiroptera, posted 09-21-2006 9:13 AM danny has not replied

danny
Inactive Junior Member


Message 10 of 302 (350913)
09-21-2006 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Brian
09-20-2006 4:31 PM


keeping things on track
Hi Brian
The mainstream scientific views on universal evolution are common knowledge. Many science textbooks contain it. If in doubt I refer you to your local library.
If you get a chance could you please critique my interpretation of the passage in Genesis 1 regarding the so-called creation of atmosphere

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Brian, posted 09-20-2006 4:31 PM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by AdminPD, posted 09-21-2006 7:58 AM danny has not replied
 Message 143 by Gigawatts, posted 06-30-2007 3:16 PM danny has not replied

danny
Inactive Junior Member


Message 11 of 302 (350917)
09-21-2006 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by PaulK
09-20-2006 6:45 PM


keeping things on track
Hi PaulK
Indeed, with no atmosphere more light will shine on the surface of the earth but the phenomena of daylight will not exist which is the point of what I'm saying.
I too do not know how plants can survive without an atmosphere unless we're talking about the bacterial blue-green algae that gave us our present breathable one. Land based plants such as trees certainly do cock up chronology of things but we can't have everything.
Maybe the passage is concerned with the creation of a breathable atmosphere. Please feel free to critique the interpretation I have given of the passage from Genesis 1 while I mull over those pesky trees.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by PaulK, posted 09-20-2006 6:45 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by PaulK, posted 09-21-2006 3:29 AM danny has not replied

danny
Inactive Junior Member


Message 12 of 302 (350918)
09-21-2006 3:06 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by PaulK
09-20-2006 6:45 PM


keeping things on track
Hi PaulK
Indeed, with no atmosphere more light will shine on the surface of the earth but the phenomena of daylight will not exist which is the point of what I'm saying.
I too do not know how plants can survive without an atmosphere unless we're talking about the bacterial blue-green algae that gave us our present breathable one. Land based plants such as trees certainly do cock up chronology of things but we can't have everything.
Maybe the passage is concerned with the creation of a breathable atmosphere. Please feel free to critique the interpretation I have given of the passage from Genesis 1 while I mull over those pesky trees.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by PaulK, posted 09-20-2006 6:45 PM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Coragyps, posted 09-21-2006 11:01 AM danny has not replied

danny
Inactive Junior Member


Message 13 of 302 (350919)
09-21-2006 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by PaulK
09-20-2006 6:45 PM


keeping things on track
Hi PaulK
Indeed, with no atmosphere more light will shine on the surface of the earth but the phenomena of daylight will not exist which is the point of what I'm saying.
I too do not know how plants can survive without an atmosphere unless we're talking about the bacterial blue-green algae that gave us our present breathable one. Land based plants such as trees certainly do cock up chronology of things but we can't have everything.
Maybe the passage is concerned with the creation of a breathable atmosphere. Please feel free to critique the interpretation I have given of the passage from Genesis 1 while I mull over those pesky trees.
How can there be day and evening when the earth hasn't even been created? This too doesn't make sense but maybe there is some weird kind of explanation - like it refers more to phases or stages rather than actual earth days

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by PaulK, posted 09-20-2006 6:45 PM PaulK has not replied

danny
Inactive Junior Member


Message 14 of 302 (350920)
09-21-2006 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Gary
09-20-2006 7:06 PM


keeping things on track
Hi Gary
There's no pressing need to reconcile the Genesis 1 account and scientific findings. No one's going to be saved and the world will stay the same. It's just a bit of fun

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Gary, posted 09-20-2006 7:06 PM Gary has not replied

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


Message 15 of 302 (350921)
09-21-2006 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by danny
09-21-2006 3:05 AM


Re: keeping things on track
Perhaps you can explain precisely what you mean by "the phenomenon of daylight" - remembering that it ought to be equivalent to moonlight since - by your reading - these are paralleled in the text.
Aside from the fact that I believe that blue green algae are better described as bacteria rather than plants (cyanobacteria) I find it hard to believe that they could survive without an atmosphere of some sort. I would be suprised if you could even have liquid water.
The breathability of the atmosphere is another issue - but you can't directly appeal to that because Genesis doesn't directly mention the atmosphere at all. You need to link it to your explanation of the "lights" because that is the part off Genesis that you are actually referring to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by danny, posted 09-21-2006 3:05 AM danny has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by PaulK, posted 09-21-2006 3:42 AM PaulK 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