|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The Unacknowledged Accuracy of Genesis 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
doctrbill Member (Idle past 2792 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
danny writes: Doctrbill, as I understand it, you are saying that the firmament can be equated with the edge of the universe, As one commentary puts it: quote: it is the expanse (and expansion (?) of the universe). Expanse, yes but only in the sense of spaciousness. The Hebrew word is an industrial technical term meaning: hammered out and in other places the Heaven is said to be solid like a cast metal mirror.
In my own interpretation of the verse "God made the firmament, and separated the water under the firmament from the water above it" I have asked the question - How can there be water 'above' the firmament? To me this indicates something that stands outside the universe. I have figured that the only possible way for this to occur is if something existed BEFORE the universe was created, only then can it be said to be outside or 'above' the firmament. OK.
Genesis is quite specific that there was indeed such a situation - "The earth was a vast waste, darkness covered the deep, and the spirit of God hovered over the surface of the water." Here we are specifically told that there were at least two elememts that existed before the creation of the universe - the spirit of God and the water (this must surely be a reference to the waters 'above' the firmament.) All the waters, I think.
The next step of pondering the above verse was asking - How can the firmament 'separate' the waters above the firmament from the waters below? I view the waters below the firmament as the energy that initially poured into the newly created universe (although I'm not sure whether the Hebrew word for water can be used in this sense), Sounds like you may be getting the cart ahead of the horse. We are talking about Act Two of Genesis Week and you speak of the “newly created universe” already. And, as far as I know, ancient philosophers did not use the word water to describe energy. They did, however, have a liquid energy source (naptha) which may have been loosely, or poetically, described as “water.”
whereas the waters above the firmament must be viewed as some kind of energy that could exist in a state where there was no physical space. Seems to me that you can’t manipulate something which occupies “no physical space.” I mean: Where is it? With what is it combined? How do you extract it, separate it, put it in its place?
As mentioned earlier I view the firmament, not only as the expanse of the universe but also it's expansion. You are welcome to your view, of course, but before you build further on the word firmament, you should really look it up in a dictionary, keeping in mind that this word hails from at least 405 AD when Jerome produced the Latin Vulgate Bible. Firmament implies limitation, NOT expansion.
When the universe was first created there were only two elements at play, the initial energy and expansion. As the universe expanded it cooled, as it cooled the initial energy changed 'forms' to make sub-atomic particles, then atoms, then the first elements (hydrogen etc), then gases, liquids, solids etc and on and on until we have todays visible universe. So, the firmament (expansion) separates the waters (various 'forms' of energy) by cooling the universe down as it expands. A nice scenario; if you don’t care what you say. I agree that we should put our imaginations to it and try to find a way for people to see it together. That is what I have attempted to do. Beginning at about twenty years of age, I set out to explain and legitimize the holy scripture to a world of unbelievers. In the process, I learned that I did NOT, in the beginning, understand it myself. Long story short: I now seek to explain the holy scripture to believers and unbelievers. Theology is the science of Dominion. - - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
danny Inactive Junior Member |
quote:Correct me if I'm wrong but you appear to be saying "If you want to discuss similarities, there are no similarities so there is no discussion." As you pointed out yourself, this is a discussion site but you seem intent on killing any kind of discussion from the outset. I believe it may be you who is in the wrong place.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: So far as I can tell the literal meaning does appear to indicate actual days. I can't see any textual grounds for ruling out such a reading - just the opposite. Of course if you want to argue that the entire account is non-literal that doesn't matter.
quote: I don't agree that Genesis 1 is describing the creation of the universe in that sense. Reading it as referring to literal water being separated by the sky, on the other hand makes quite a lot of sense - in a Middle Eastern Creation myth.
quote: That assumes that he writers knew it wasn't really the case, which I'm not about to concede without evidence. In fact it is important to note that the one thing missing from Genesis 1 is any mention of biological evolution - there is no sense of change other than simple additions. You don't get any sense that the animals in the categories change over time or of the connections between the different categories (and it doesn't even recognise that birds or whales evolved from land animals at all)
quote:No, they're explicitly brought forth from the earth ("land" in the NIV) - Genesis 1:24
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: You're wrong. I'm saying that if you don't want to argue over whether the similarities are really there you need to come up with ones too obvious to argue over. I add that I don't think that there are any of significance - but I hope you realise that is stating an opinion that is open to rebuttal. That's a long way from stating that there definitely aren't any at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
danny Inactive Junior Member |
I use word 'expansion' because in my Oxford Collins Holy Bible Concordance it specifically relates it to 'firmament', although I know these things aren't necessarily definitive. When you say firmament implies limitation, does this mean in a purely static sense, ie: so far and no more?
I must stress, I'm n ot trying to lay down some law with all this, it's more an exercise in the possibilities of interpretation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
doctrbill Member (Idle past 2792 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
danny writes: I use word 'expansion' because in my Oxford Collins Holy Bible Concordance it specifically relates it to 'firmament'... You need to quote this concordance. I suspect that you are misinterpreting what you find there.
When you say firmament implies limitation, does this mean in a purely static sense, ie: so far and no more? A firmament (L. firmamentum) is a supportive structure. i.e. solid, immobile. A scaffolding fits the definition very nicely. You haven't bothered to look it up for yourself, have you? Let me make it easy for you. Pay special attention to the etymology: http://education.yahoo.com/...nce/dictionary/entry/firmament There are graphics, you know; old woodcuts and etchings made in the day of the scholars who first produced the Bible in English. These artworks demonstrate the 'scientific' perspective of pre-copernican cosmology. In these works: the firmament is clearly depicted in a way which satisfies the qualities given it by the text.
I must stress, I'm n ot trying to lay down some law with all this, it's more an exercise in the possibilities of interpretation. I'm not worried. There is only one interpretation consistent with both the text AND 'science' as it existed when these lines were written. Theology is the science of Dominion. - - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
We can't really regard the 'days' of creation as actual days (I'm sure you can figure out why) no. why? because obviously if we read the text literally, it's wrong? that's not a good reason if we are testing for accuracy. we are merely confirming our own biases. there is simply no good argument that they mean anything other than "days." even in the more symbolic and applied readings -- higher interpretations than the literal -- it's clearly talking about one singular week of creation. the story is about time, what marks time (the sun, the moon), day and night, and the origin of shabat. reading it as anything else is simply to support a rather faulty idea of what the text is.
(mind you, there was no mention of bacteria, amino acids or any pre-biotic systems) of course not. the people who wrote the story had no idea of what those things are, and this is NOT the focus of the text.
And I think you'll find (but correct me if I'm wrong) that the animals "brought forth" from the sea include "cattle, creeping things and wild animals". consider yourself corrected.
quote: quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
I use word 'expansion' because in my Oxford Collins Holy Bible Concordance it specifically relates it to 'firmament', yes, "expansion" as in what happens to hot metal when you beat it with a hammer. that "expanse" essentially means "flat." similarly, the word "firmament" has a rather strict connotation of solidity. i mean, the word "firm" is right in there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Juraikken Member (Idle past 6216 days) Posts: 82 From: Winnetka, CA Joined: |
ok, i almost jumped out of my chair from this one. i am responding to the first post.
ok the light that governs the day HAS to be the sun because, OK lets take the sun away THERE IS NO LIGHT! and what is moonight? FROM THE MOON THE LESSER LIGHT. what are the Zodiac please tell me? people back in the day looked up in the sky and SAW IMAGES in their heads and said "look this looks like a warrior lets call him Orion" now i could do that too i go out in my backyard and look up in the sky and say "hmm that one looks like a chicken!!!!" the Zodiac is just MADE up by people!
quote: WHAT!!!! daylight comes from the sun, moonight comes from the MOON, and zodiac is created by teh constellations of groups of stars that look like things! how could they be created by atmosphere?
quote: and how do you propose there is no atmosphere? and plus even if we are not on earth the sun STILL shines light on the moon from space.
quote: first of all you would be in a different position, and second of all, there are tons of stars out there that are not PART of any zodiac, so its not based on atmosphere per se, its based on what images weve made out of what we SEE you havent proved that they are similar you have twisted around everything to fit what you want
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pwnagepanda Junior Member (Idle past 6175 days) Posts: 7 From: Piedmont, California, USA Joined: |
i am a practicing, Conservative Jew, but i have never found any contradiction between science and religion because they do not contradict each other unless you think they do. I think of religion as a completely separate idea from science. the problem is when religion seeps into science and begins making its untestable claims and dresses them up as real science.
sorry, but science needs evidence |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nimrod Member (Idle past 4944 days) Posts: 277 Joined: |
There are multiple threads that cover he same general issues.I made a post that showed that the most ancient Mesopotamian peoples (based on their texts) felt the air or atmosphere held the "waters" seperate from the Earth and also that the plain understanding of "waters" was generally the material of the universe.
It thus documents that the "firmament" was a word used but nothing more should be read into its exact definition.Sort of like saying "stuff keeping our air distinct from the non air outer-world".They (c500BCE hebrews) may have not used the best word to translate what was apparantly once known (based on Sumerian texts and surely others traditions), but that would be expected. Interesting that firmament (the actual word we use in English) around 500AD also can literally (like Raqia' from 500 BCE) mean something solid. So, anybody want to take a stab at proving that the peoples then (Latin, Greek, western, etc.) though it was a solid metal dome protecting us? I REALLY REALLY want a responce but keep in mind that it wouldnt prove that the proto-semites & Sumerians believed such. Just as c500BCE Hebrew texts say *NOTHING* about the vews of their proto-types (whatever they may be). "Aggadah Of Genesis:In Conflict With Science" is the thread I posted in if anybody wants to see my quotes of the finest scholars around (their conclusions based on penetrating study).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Equinox Member (Idle past 5170 days) Posts: 329 From: Michigan Joined: |
So, anybody want to take a stab at proving that the peoples then (Latin, Greek, western, etc.) though it was a solid metal dome protecting us? IA friend of mine was born and raised a conservative Jew in Jerusalem, and Hebrew is his first language. I talked with him about Genesis a couple years ago, and we went through the different parts of the creation story in detail. As people like Arachnophilia know, the story is rich in details that are not apparent in the English. Anyway, on the subject of the firmament, he said that the Hebrew word used the same word used to mean a metal bowl beaten to be concave from a flat sheet. In other words, “firmament” literally means “solid beaten bowl” in Genesis. For what it’s worth- -Equinox _ _ _ ___ _ _ _You know, it's probably already answered at An Index to Creationist Claims... (Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan - Naturalistic Paganism Home)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nimrod Member (Idle past 4944 days) Posts: 277 Joined: |
I have a pretty good grasp of basic Hebrew grammar (Biblical prose and not the poetic and archaic forms) and vocabulary (and have so for as long as I posted here), and I can tell you the the exact definition of the Hebrew word isnt the issue.
Im not saying that my view in Genesis1 being a remnant of primitive divine revelation is correct, but I *AM* saying that people here simply arent looking at the issue from any logical perspective.(some are less-off than others granted) Definitions change over time.You will notice that many ancient Greek words have cognates in modern English.But you should be warned that you shouldnt use English definitions for today to define the Greek words.Ancient Greek has no knowledge of how word would develope in thousands of years, especially in corrupted forms in other languages. In addition to word-definitions changing, concepts will change slightly over time and it may even become dramatic. Think of the changes involved when advanced concepts cant be understood by the ancient peoples- who have a concept far removed in time from its even more ancient revelation- who will clearly try to fit the confused issue into their own limited grasp of the world. Try reading English words from 1000 years ago. Now picture an ancient Hebrew scribe from 500BCE trying to read an old-Amorite text rom 2100 Ur.Imagine the 2100 Amorite (from Sumer) trying to put an ancient oral tradition from the proto-Semitic stage of the language from c5000 BCE into c2000BCE language. Granted a good English scholar could make a pretty decent translation of the c1000AD text, but thats mainly because we have advanced in knowledge. The Semites would be in an inferior position to the revealed text.In addition to all the other problems involved (languages were a rapidly moving target before the advent of mass communication). Im not saying my "faith" can be fully proven mind you.But we arent even arguing an apples-apples argument. People are assuming that the argument is based around "The Bible came into being in the roughly 1000 years before Christ and the text is 100% revealed in that time-frame free of transmission error".Granted both sides have made that the issue, so nobody can be blamed for responding along those lines. But it gets a little fustrating when some cant understand what the real issue is even when I try to point it out(I have seen evidence that some DO infact understand what I am saying and where I am coming from,even if they still disagree with me on Genesis). I am not trying to stop a debate, but I just want people to understand that ancient peoples (before 1000BCE) did seem to have a primitive concept in an air or atmosphere. (my point on the actual Latin word from the Vulgate was that I am wondering what peoples views were then.Does the literal definition of firmament reflect their scientific views of the time.Its not a HUGE point in any case, but interesting to consider regardless)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Equinox Member (Idle past 5170 days) Posts: 329 From: Michigan Joined: |
Now picture an ancient Hebrew scribe from 500BCE trying to read an old-Amorite text rom 2100 Ur.Imagine the 2100 Amorite (from Sumer) trying to put an ancient oral tradition from the proto-Semitic stage of the language from c5000 BCE into c2000BCE language. OK, you are clearly not suggesting the typical fundy line. What you are saying (correct me if I’m wrong), is that a transcendent God inspired the creation story inerrantly (or at least in agreement with modern science) to someone (say a proto semite) in the distant past, say, 5,000 BCE, and the story was passed along various cultures, rewritten & re translated by different peoples such as the Amorites and other middle eastern pre-biblical people, and that these stories were eventually adopted and incorporated into the Hebrew Bible (probably roughly in line with what modern Bible scholarship has shown us as far as the adoption of earlier stories to make the bible). Hence, the Bible is the word of God, but that the transmission hasn’t been preserved, and the revelation didn’t come to the Hebrews (it predated them). Right? If so, that’s an interesting idea. It’s an idea squarely outside the stated beliefs of most Christian groups, and especially outside those of any fundamentalist group. It also means that your interesting idea is more in line with the evidence, and not as silly as biblical inerrancy. However, I don’t see how it survives Occam’s razor, since all we have are the highly distorted end results, which we now can’t tell from campfire tales. It is an idea that can’t get support from fundamentalist Christians, and also can’t get support from the evidence. I mean, I’m not strongly against it, but it draws only lukewarm support from me, due to the Occam thing. Let me know if I missed anything. Thanks- -Equinox _ _ _ ___ _ _ _You know, it's probably already answered at An Index to Creationist Claims... (Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan - Naturalistic Paganism Home)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nimrod Member (Idle past 4944 days) Posts: 277 Joined: |
Posting is difficult too for a huge number of reasons.(I lost a hugh hour long post I was making on the Book of Daniel thread ast night)
Nimrod Now picture an ancient Hebrew scribe from 500BCE trying to read an old-Amorite text rom 2100 Ur.Imagine the 2100 Amorite (from Sumer) trying to put an ancient oral tradition from the proto-Semitic stage of the language from c5000 BCE into c2000BCE language.
Equinox OK, you are clearly not suggesting the typical fundy line. What you are saying (correct me if I’m wrong), is that a transcendent God inspired the creation story inerrantly (or at least in agreement with modern science) to someone (say a proto semite) in the distant past, say, 5,000 BCE, and the story was passed along various cultures, rewritten & re translated by different peoples such as the Amorites and other middle eastern pre-biblical people, and that these stories were eventually adopted and incorporated into the Hebrew Bible (probably roughly in line with what modern Bible scholarship has shown us as far as the adoption of earlier stories to make the bible). Hence, the Bible is the word of God, but that the transmission hasn’t been preserved, and the revelation didn’t come to the Hebrews (it predated them). Right?
Mostly right and actually a perfect understanding based on what I typed in the post above. What is somewhat wrong with your understanding of my post has to do with my simplfied post which left many details out. I believe that the proto-Semitic stage of the Hebrew language would have been founded after the Babel event(unless Semitic is part of a larger language group which started post-Babel hence "proto-Semitic" would be even later), and thus long after the original revelation of Genesis1 (and the flood which would be later than Genesis 1 of course). Amorite actually can be considered an ancestor of Hebrew(or an extremely close branch at one time).West Semitic split into 2 main languages;Amorite and Canaanite(which Hebrew is a descended from). Amorites were present in Ur just before the time of Abraham.I noticed that myself, but was pleased to see William Hallo mention that important fact in his university standard "History Of The Ancient Near East". So some Amorites could clearly be seen as direct ancestors of the "Hebrews" we all know of. And if the direct ancestors of Anmorites were the proto-semites (highly reasonable that at least some Amorites would be directly blood related to their linguistic ancestors though outsiders could adopt the language through intermixing), then one would wonder if "Shem"'s descendents really are an ancestor of Semites. If the bloodline's are literal (though there could be many figures of speech in highly abbreviated form) then there surely are massive genological gaps.The Primeval period of genesis 1-11 is clearly a very short account of long ago periods made to connect to the historic period starting after chapter 11.And whether there is a bloodline connection to Abraham (in reality) can only be speculation. Also, there hasnt been any really decent case made showing the Hebrews borrowing from a SPECIFIC Mesopotamian text.I think they could have had an ancient strand (perhaps the most accurate) which predated all historical texts which might have been influenced by fellow Ancient Near Easterners.
Equinox If so, that’s an interesting idea. It’s an idea squarely outside the stated beliefs of most Christian groups, and especially outside those of any fundamentalist group. It also means that your interesting idea is more in line with the evidence, and not as silly as biblical inerrancy. However, I don’t see how it survives Occam’s razor, since all we have are the highly distorted end results, which we now can’t tell from campfire tales. It is an idea that can’t get support from fundamentalist Christians, and also can’t get support from the evidence. I mean, I’m not strongly against it, but it draws only lukewarm support from me, due to the Occam thing. Let me know if I missed anything. Thanks-
William Hallo has noticed that (with the exception of Babel) some basic details in the early stories of Genesis can be found in nearly all the worlds cultures. That (to me) would be consistent with mass diffusion post-flood but pre Babel. The Native Americans had flood stories and they often had a chosen family surviving(as did many other diverse ancient cultures).Any mainstream historian will tell you that there is no demonstrable case of Ancient Native Americans borrowing from the Old World in the historical period.There could have been complete isolation after the Ice Age ended.That could support the view of a primitive knowledge among some peoples of the flood which perhaps came from Mespotamia. I suppose we have to consider many things. Occams razor will come in handy for sure. One argument to consider is the order of events in the 6 days of genesis and how they square to scientific discoveries.Two thorny issues are whether everything should be in 100% order- with every stage of evolution carefully included in the Genesis account; then the issue of what an exact word meant or could have meant which I think needs to be expanded into "what primitive concept could the word be a reflection of or translation of". I think comparisons to "proto-typical" texts (ie Mesopotamians) and the scholars conclusions (with regards to what the Mesopotamians were saying) can help with the latter. The former requires somebody with a scientific background to comment. (not saying you were missing any of the above mind you, despite my "responce")
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024