|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The Unacknowledged Accuracy of Genesis 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote:The SIMILARITIES are based on "interpreting" Genesis 1 so it fits with modern science - there is no "shooting in the dark". The eisegetes knwo what target they are aiming at and are quite happy to strain the text to fit. quote: I did that and posted my findings Message 19. Have you read Genesis 1 ? Did you find the "SIMILARITIES" ? Perhaps you can explain why setting a solid dome in the sky to keep water out is "SIMILAR" to the expanding Universe. It doesn't look very similar to me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
there is a third option--they were just ignorant In the absence of compelling evidence, I reject out of hand any suggestion that the writers of the bible didn't know that light came from the sun, the moon and the stars. (Of course, they were incorrect to the extent that they believed that the moon generated light, instead of reflecting it, but I don't think this diminishes my point.) Also, it's my understanding that people had been farming for thousands of years before the bible was written. I find it very unlikely that in that time nobody realized the connection between the sun and plants. Even though they may not have known about the mechanism that made that connection significant, it seems probable that the connection was known. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: I think it's pretty clear that the writer of Genesis 1 didn't realise that the sun was the source of daylight - just as he didn't realise that the moon only reflected it. The writer did know that the Sun Moon and stars were light sources but not just how important the Sun is. And it's not too surprising - daylight is diffused by the atmosphere as has already been discussed here. A naive viewer might think that the day sky was itself a light source. If you examine the text it seems quite clear that the day/night cycle is set up in Genesis 1:3-5, in the first day.
3 Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night And (there was evening and there was morning, one day.
The Sun, Moon and Stars only appear in the 4th day (Genesis 1:14-18)
14 Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so. 16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. 17 God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good.
Yes, they give "light upon the Earth" but we mustn't take it out of context and ignore the earlier verses. Or the fact that this is the 4th day.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Certainly if the writer intended it to be an accurate narrative of the creation of the universe, it would be enough to show that the writer didn't understand that light came from the sun. On the other hand, if the writer instead intended it to be a sytlised or metaphoric narrative, one cannot come to that conclusion.
I can easily imagine why a writer, putting together some sort of metaphorical account, would create light on the first day in the way that it is done. The account describes the process in terms of what is done on each day. Obviously, in order for there to be days, as understood at the time, there would have to be a light/dark cycle. I'm having more difficulty understanding a metaphorical or stylised reason why the sun, moon and stars were not created until the fourth day, but literary exegesis was never my strong suit. In any event, as I said previously, the mere fact that daylight came three days before the light sources is not enough to convince me that the writer didn't understand that the sun was the light source. I agree that a naive viewer might think that the day sky was itself a light source, but I don't think it necessarily follows that that is what the writer believed. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
You need to consider that the understanding of how we see, that light travels from source to object, then bounces back to the eye is a fairly recent discovery. As late as 300 BC Euclid still believed that vision worked by rays going from the eye to the object. This was in spite of his work on light in Optica where he accurately described the fact that light travels in a straight line and the law of reflection.
The connection between dark and light and the sun and moon really wasn't apparent to the writers of the period. Each item was separate and unique and they were not seen as part of a system. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Very interesting -- something that probably would never have occurred to me. But it makes sense. Even when I am in the shadow of a large building or in a valley, I can see perfectly fine. Which is not true for bright light sources that are local. Daylight, come to think of it, really is different that light from an identifiable source. "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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MangyTiger Member (Idle past 6382 days) Posts: 989 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
As late as 300 BC Euclid still believed that vision worked by rays going from the eye to the object. This view was still in common circulation until at least 1021 AD as Ibn al-Haitham (aka al-Hazen) deals with (debunks) it in his work Kitab al-Manazir (Book of Optics). Oops! Wrong Planet
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
I'm surprised that none of our literalist cousins have yet misquoted some poetic Biblical passage allegedly showing that the Bible already knew that people see by reflected light.
"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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4139 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
I'm surprised that none of our literalist cousins have yet misquoted some poetic Biblical passage allegedly showing that the Bible already knew that people see by reflected light.
rofl i might go see is psalms has one about the light of god in the eye or some such, since people try to claim poetry is prophicy!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
doctrbill Member (Idle past 2793 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
jar writes: As late as 300 BC Euclid still believed that vision worked by rays going from the eye to the object. Leonardo Da Vinci also held to this opinion (according to a statement of his which I quoted in a paper on the subject for an English class about a hundred years ago). I can't help but wonder how these men explained why it is that we cannot see in the dark!? Edited by doctrbill, : Edited to pose question. Theology is the science of Dominion. - - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MangyTiger Member (Idle past 6382 days) Posts: 989 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
can't help but wonder how these men explained why it is that we cannot see in the dark!? Well the super-genome we had before the Fall contained the information for the 'high beam' rays but since then... Oops! Wrong Planet
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dilyias Member (Idle past 1395 days) Posts: 21 From: Minnesota Joined: |
quote: I doubt this. A naive viewer would witness the the sun rising and the day beginning. As the sun gets higher in the sky things become brighter. As the sun lowers and sets into the void it gets dark again and the day is over. In reality, there is no such thing as a day. There is always sunlight shining on one side of the earth, and the opposite side is in darkness. The invention of a "day" is simply a result of living on a fixed point on the earth. Before people knew this, they thought the sun was shining light on the whole earth. In reality, this never happens. It is always day and it is always night. The genesis story is without hope when compared to reality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2542 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
but, you can see in the shadow, no? And what is shadow caused by? Blockage of the sun. So where does the light come from to allow you to see in the shadow?
after all, according the first genesis story, there was day and night before there was the sun. Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dilyias Member (Idle past 1395 days) Posts: 21 From: Minnesota Joined: |
Perhaps the sun is strong enough to shine through you, and you are blocking only some of its light. From that point of view.
quote: True. :-) And there was still light shortly after the sun set. But God called the light day and the darkness night. Yet there is always light on one half of the earth, and always less light on the other side. Always day and always night.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nimrod Member (Idle past 4944 days) Posts: 277 Joined: |
Animals that live outside their entire lives can tell when a storm is coming.They can sense subtle differences in weather changes.
We live inside (as we modern dayers do) our whole lives and take light for granted. Nightime was avery rough time for ancient people (many dangerous predators come out at night to make matters even worse), the sun coming up in the morning was quite a relief.Look at how many people worshipped the sun.Infact Egyptians even put it higher than their precious life-giving Nile. Ancient people would have been very sensitive to the fact that the moon helps visibility in a major way. I have no idea what quotes can be mined showing that ancient people "were ignorant of sources of light" , but my suggestion is to simply reach out and touch basic reality. Light came from the Sun,Moon, and stars.Ancient people (start with 3000 years ago and go back as far as you want) would have known it without exception.Maybe if "fire" was mentioned in day 1 (it isnt!) then I would believe that the Sun wasnt assumed to have been created/evolved yet. I dont know if it was mentioned here, but I can also assure people that *highland* dwelling (important common sense issue!) Israelites would have known almost exactly what clouds were (and that they were the same thing as fog).Crash (or splash?) goes the typical "literal windows of heaven" argument against the Bible. I do admit that ancient peoples MAY have thought of the heavens as being water over a dome,infact I think they did.But what we dont know (except know-it-alls which are too many IMHO) is whether they thought every space above,below, and around Earth was water (with earth as just an island or group of islands with one giant dome), or if there was a bottom part of foundational land with pillars holding up domed Earth and just water over it.I am sure there were many views (a good many we dont know about in addition to the 2 above), but with regards to the Bible, the idea of outer-space being mistaken as water (above, below, and around an atmosphere described as "firmament")seems to be a fair detection. I also dont see how the Earth being half covered by light (dis)proves anything (I know that was mentioned)in Genesis. I have mentioned this before, but it would be nice if the Bible critics could be questioned on some of their claims.I am just making general critiques.I admit that this whole thread is in the context of yet another Christian attempt to explain Genesis (Im not even sure what this thread is supposed to mesh Genesis with,as it doesnt seem related to mainstream science) but I almost think it would be best if the Christians would turn their attention to Bible critics. Put them on trial for once. I have yet to see any Genesis 1 critics quote the Mesopotamian "proto-types" so we can see what they said about the order of events.Show us that the Genesis "source material",which are generally more elaborate and detailed on the Creation parallel, have the order of events in a certain sequence. I see alot of blanket statements by Genesis critics, but little documentation. Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : detected a typo
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024