Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8950 total)
60 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, jar, JonF, Percy (Admin) (5 members, 55 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,331 Year: 22,367/19,786 Month: 930/1,834 Week: 430/500 Day: 63/66 Hour: 4/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Unacknowledged Accuracy of Genesis 1
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2012 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 136 of 302 (408057)
06-30-2007 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by danny
09-19-2006 6:26 AM


quote:
Danny:

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.


You are correct - at least by actual reference to its textual context. The sun was created in the beginning opening verse [heavens/galaxies]; the 4th day only refers to 'LUMINOSITY' - the texts allow no other reading, catering only to SIGNS [Astronomy] and omens [astrology].

The sun/stars do not emit luminosity until after an embryotic phase is successfully passed, and some stars do not achieve this status. Thus the earth recieved luminosity on the 4th 'cosmic day' [obviously, a non-24 hour day w/o the luminosity]. The 'days' in chapter 1 are thus epochs of time. The Genesis calendar, which is the oldest and most accurate in existence [able to predict a sunset a 100,000 years in advance, and accurate to a billionth of a sec]correctly begins with the advent of humans, namely the 5766 years refers from Adam to now.

One must pause and consider what is being said via deep scientific and logical contemplation, and not be swayed by the decpetively simple biblical texts - these are in a mode which must cater to all generations of mankind.

Genesis is also correct in placing 'Light' as the first entity - this is a pre-sun light [the stars could not produce light if it was not pre-existing of the stars]. The 'LET THERE BE LIGHT' is not particularly a conflict with the BBT, and also doubles up as a brilliant metaphor in its pre-sun light application.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Coragyps, posted 06-30-2007 10:02 AM IamJoseph has responded
 Message 138 by AdminCoragyps, posted 06-30-2007 10:13 AM IamJoseph has responded

Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5414
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 6.0


Message 137 of 302 (408060)
06-30-2007 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by IamJoseph
06-30-2007 9:32 AM


The Genesis calendar, which is the oldest and most accurate in existence (able to predict a sunset a 100,000 years in advance, and accurate to a billionth of a sec)

What total nonsense! Balderdash! Where did this silliness even come from?

Edited by Coragyps, : No reason given.

Edited by Coragyps, : fix stuff....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by IamJoseph, posted 06-30-2007 9:32 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by IamJoseph, posted 06-30-2007 10:59 AM Coragyps has responded

AdminCoragyps
Inactive Member


Message 138 of 302 (408061)
06-30-2007 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by IamJoseph
06-30-2007 9:32 AM


Hi, Joseph! You might consider using something other than square brackets for parentheses - they are part of the dBCode that this board uses, and might result in some peculiar-looking posts. Try () or {} instead.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by IamJoseph, posted 06-30-2007 9:32 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by IamJoseph, posted 06-30-2007 10:46 AM AdminCoragyps has not yet responded

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2012 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 139 of 302 (408072)
06-30-2007 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by AdminCoragyps
06-30-2007 10:13 AM


I will - cease using . Thanks

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by AdminCoragyps, posted 06-30-2007 10:13 AM AdminCoragyps has not yet responded

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2012 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 140 of 302 (408077)
06-30-2007 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Coragyps
06-30-2007 10:02 AM


quote:
cora:

What total nonsense! Balderdash! Where did this silliness even come from?


Nothing of the sort. You still have to show a calendar older than 5766 years. That the genesis calendar is the most accurate - by a very far scale, is not in dispute anywhere. It is quite a mysterious thing - the only calendar based on the solar, lunar and earthly movements. Examing it closer, there is no other reading of it of a spherical earth - pre-dating Galelio by 3000 years! The christian gregorian and the islamic calendars are not scientific but based on beliefs.

Allow me to give you an example of this calendar's exactness - in relation to its texts spread over five books, containing 100s of 1000s of dates in its verses and para's - which are all 100% synchrosized with each other - an amazing feat.

In the book of Exodus, it says The ten Commandments were handed down on a 'Saturday': 'Remember *THIS* day as the Sabaath'/Ex - namely, this day meaning today is the Sabbath. If you calculate all the dates and follow this to day # 1 in the genesis calendar - it stacks up! The same applies to ALL dates pervasive in the OT. This is hardly bolderdash!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Coragyps, posted 06-30-2007 10:02 AM Coragyps has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by ringo, posted 06-30-2007 12:16 PM IamJoseph has responded
 Message 142 by Coragyps, posted 06-30-2007 1:03 PM IamJoseph has responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 17682
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 141 of 302 (408087)
06-30-2007 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by IamJoseph
06-30-2007 10:59 AM


IAmJoseph writes:

That the genesis calendar is the most accurate - by a very far scale, is not in dispute anywhere.

It's in dispute here, sonny.

By definition, a "calendar" that mentions only days can not possibly have a resolution of billionths of a second. Nor can it predict anything.


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by IamJoseph, posted 06-30-2007 10:59 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by IamJoseph, posted 06-30-2007 11:13 PM ringo has responded

Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5414
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 6.0


Message 142 of 302 (408090)
06-30-2007 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by IamJoseph
06-30-2007 10:59 AM


Examing it closer, there is no other reading of it of a spherical earth -

You're kidding, right? "Isa 40:22It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:"

Edited by Coragyps, : goofy things happening.....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by IamJoseph, posted 06-30-2007 10:59 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by IamJoseph, posted 06-30-2007 11:21 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

Gigawatts
Junior Member (Idle past 4459 days)
Posts: 10
From: Nassau, Bahamas
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 143 of 302 (408101)
06-30-2007 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by danny
09-21-2006 2:51 AM


Re: keeping things on track
Hi Danny,
In response to Brian's question, you wrote:

"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"

Are you honestly trying to justify the validity of evolution by claiming it's "common knowledge" and that "many science textbooks contain it"? Personally, I am in serious doubt of macro-evolution through its repeated use of the phrase "millions and millions of years" to magically explain a theory that takes twice as much faith to believe than the literal translation of Genesis. If you truly believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God, I recommend that you stop trying to bend His teaching to fit the lies that today's society would have you believe.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by danny, posted 09-21-2006 2:51 AM danny has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by jar, posted 06-30-2007 3:33 PM Gigawatts has responded

jar
Member
Posts: 31794
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 144 of 302 (408103)
06-30-2007 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Gigawatts
06-30-2007 3:16 PM


Re: keeping things on track
Hi Giga and welcome.

The subject is the Creation Myth from Genesis 1 and that is simply wrong, false, refuted, incorrect, absurd and teaching stuff like that is to simply impose a Cult of Ignorance on our children.

Those who try to pretend that the Creation Myths in Genesis are literally true is, in the words of over 10,000 US Christian Clergy, "is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children."

If you truly believe the Bible is the Word of God, it is time to stop preaching the lies that are Biblical Creationism.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Gigawatts, posted 06-30-2007 3:16 PM Gigawatts has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by IamJoseph, posted 06-30-2007 11:28 PM jar has responded
 Message 166 by Gigawatts, posted 07-01-2007 7:22 AM jar has not yet responded
 Message 167 by Gigawatts, posted 07-01-2007 7:26 AM jar has responded

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2012 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 145 of 302 (408151)
06-30-2007 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by ringo
06-30-2007 12:16 PM


quote:
ringo:
It's in dispute here, sonny.

By definition, a "calendar" that mentions only days can not possibly have a resolution of billionths of a second. Nor can it predict anything.


That link ('here') does'nt work. Everything, even God, can be made in dispute - all it takes is one person and one post on the net. There is however no dispute about the predictability factor of the OT calendar. I have posted here the intergrated exactness of all numerical entries and dates in the OT, and that the listings of pages of generation names are scientifically authentic, so I won't repeat it; but there is great misinfo and misrep of the OT upon a hapless world audience, and this accounts for the surprise responses. There is a walt disney presentation of the OT stories promoted by European christianity (Isaac is portrayed as an 8 year child offered for sacrifice: actually Isaac was 37 years old!).

The OT calendar's purpose was primarilly to observe the Sabaath sunset and sunrise, and the festivals mandated in the OT - which are seasonal and harvest oriented ('In the first harvest month' etc). The calendar is thus listed in the beginning of the book of genesis - to enable the observence of the laws which follow it throughout the five books. While you are right there are no hour and second breakdowns (clocks were not yet discovered), the day is devided in four sections (morning, evening, sunrise, sunset), and there are provisions for determining the sunrise and sunsets - that these are accurate to a fraction of a second was identified recently by scientists, and it is deemed the world's most accurate calendar: I can post you more affirmations of this than what you term as 'disputed'. I never made it up. This calendar is actively used today, and you can buy a future 10 year addition which lists the exact times of sunsets and sunrises in all parts of the world.

quote:

Sat, 30 June 2007 - 14th of Tamuz, 5767
Hebcal Interactive Jewish Calendar
Generate a calendar of Jewish holidays for any year 0001-9999
Customize candle lighting times to your zip code, city, or latitude/longitude
------------------------------
Hebrew Calendar Science and Myths
by Remy Landau
The following shows the arithmetic rules of the Hebrew calendar and demonstrates some of the more intriguing calculation results. In many instances, the arithmetic results appear to overthrow long held assumptions related to the Hebrew calendar, thereby relegating the assumptions to the category of myths.
However, the development of the calendar's arithmetic rules embedded and demonstrated the considerable mathematical and scientific genius of the many unnamed scholars who devoted their skills to this unique problem.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/1584/#01



This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by ringo, posted 06-30-2007 12:16 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by ringo, posted 07-01-2007 12:33 AM IamJoseph has responded
 Message 208 by Equinox, posted 07-02-2007 4:12 PM IamJoseph has responded

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2012 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 146 of 302 (408153)
06-30-2007 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Coragyps
06-30-2007 1:03 PM


quote:
cora

You're kidding, right? "Isa 40:22It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:"


There is no deficiency in those writings, except they are written in ancient form, stretching the boundaries for its times. "that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain" today aligns with the expanding galaxies ('stretcheth'). That the term 'dust' is used for life's emergence and return, can be aligned with base particles of matter. There is no better way to express such over 3000 years ago - it requires relative input.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Coragyps, posted 06-30-2007 1:03 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2012 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 147 of 302 (408154)
06-30-2007 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by jar
06-30-2007 3:33 PM


Re: keeping things on track
quote:
jar
The subject is the Creation Myth from Genesis 1 and that is simply wrong, false, refuted, incorrect, absurd and teaching stuff like that is to simply impose a Cult of Ignorance on our children.

Those who try to pretend that the Creation Myths in Genesis are literally true is, in the words of over 10,000 US Christian Clergy, "is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children."

If you truly believe the Bible is the Word of God, it is time to stop preaching the lies that are Biblical Creationism.


Which part of genesis 1 is myth? I agree it is not school science - education has to be expressed empirically, in keeping with our understandings derived via science and maths. There are statutes and given constants in Genesis 1 - science has to explain them in empirical terms.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by jar, posted 06-30-2007 3:33 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by jar, posted 06-30-2007 11:32 PM IamJoseph has responded

jar
Member
Posts: 31794
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 148 of 302 (408156)
06-30-2007 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by IamJoseph
06-30-2007 11:28 PM


Re: keeping things on track
All of Genesis 1 is myth. It is a poetic and allegorical attempt to explain relationships.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by IamJoseph, posted 06-30-2007 11:28 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by IamJoseph, posted 07-01-2007 12:25 AM jar has responded

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2012 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 149 of 302 (408164)
07-01-2007 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by jar
06-30-2007 11:32 PM


Re: keeping things on track
quote:

All of Genesis 1 is myth. It is a poetic and allegorical attempt to explain relationships.

The calendar is not a myth, nor are the list of chronological species and the paleontological names sited therein. That light is the first entiity, and the seed pivotal in repro and adaptation, are not myths but bona fide alternatives to any other premise. Same with the premise of dual-gendered life origins.

These premises are the only ones being debated in science forums today - which means they are debatable scientific premises, and not myth. Genesis does not make blatantly unvindicated postulations - it does not say that life exists or does not exist on the moon, while its bold dating of speech endowed humans have not been over-turned. Creationism and Monotheism are also not myth - both stand tody as challenging, and the swing of science is inclined with genesis - namely newly emerging controversial theories such as MV and ID:

'A COMPLEXITY CANNOT RESULT FROM A RANDOM' - Roger Primrose, confirmed atheist, cosmologist and author of MultiVerse.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by jar, posted 06-30-2007 11:32 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by jar, posted 07-01-2007 12:29 AM IamJoseph has responded

jar
Member
Posts: 31794
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 150 of 302 (408165)
07-01-2007 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by IamJoseph
07-01-2007 12:25 AM


Re: keeping things on track
The calendar is not a myth, nor are the list of chronological species and the paleontological names sited therein.

Do any of you even read the Bible?

There is no calendar in Genesis 1. The order and nature of creation in Genesis 1 is incorrect, both physically and biologically.

Genesis 1 is simply myth.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by IamJoseph, posted 07-01-2007 12:25 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by IamJoseph, posted 07-01-2007 12:41 AM jar has responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019