The Unacknowledged Accuracy of Genesis 1

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

You keep jumping several steps ahead and using assumption's that only fit 1 paradigm.If the text behind Genesis Chapter 1 originated in the 1000 years before the common era, then EVERYTHING you said is correct.But if it (or the documents behind it) was written in a lost language (pre-BLL) WAYYYYYYY over 2500 years ago, then one has to assume that not just "words" (ie.vocabulary definitions from 1000BCE),but grammar, syntax, morphology and ultimately entire sentences will only vaguely resemble (in a c2500 year old translation) what the original document described.The many translations between the Pre-Babel language and finally down to Classical Hebrew(c.900-600BCE)would see quite a few distortions.Mainly based on the scribe's(doing the translations)limited scientific knowledge.That(scientific illiteracy) may not even be the proverbial 800 pound gorilla in the room.Lexical issues COULD perhaps be the most important factor for us to consider THOUGH that would be only 1 of many linguistic factors to consider.We cant impose 21st century assumptions on an ancient Semitic mind.It gets 1000 times worse when we overlook the entire set of complicated issues that would be faced during the translation process.And if the original material that made up Genesis 1(assuming it was before known languages emerged)was passed via oral tradition, then the distortion would simply be unreal.It is NOT just a simple issue of "thats what this [3000 year old] word means" (vocabulary)infact just to focus on that 1 area would be to fail to understand the complex situation. Though the primitive lexicon is a tremendous issue to consider.But the original meaning of Genesis 1 would have been LONG lost by the Israelite monarchy period.So the Lexical issues would almost only be relevent back in the BLL time period(slightly after or before). Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

Arach.I have a question (has to do with historical Amorite/Canaanite historical linguistic issues).I cant get the search engine to respond to my keywords , so Ill ask you if there has ever been any discussion of the possible time periods for a YHWH verb (in whatever conjugation).The specific question on my mind is if anybody has a clue when final "Y" changed to H in verbs.The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament seems to indicate Amorite imperfect (conjugated) words statring with "Y" (not to be confused with the "specific question" above which is about the word ending) from c.2000 BCE to the Amarna period but its in cuneiform.The old word HYH (then HWY before W turned to Y and the final Y to H)is also present in inperfect forms through that period but they arent sure if it is "to live" or "to be".Ill take whatever discussion I can read, but has anybody talked about when the final Y may changed to H plus/or other hsitorical issues?YHWH has the archaic (by Biblical hebrew time-frames) "W" prior to a change to Y but the last consonant is the later "H".Anyway, if you can remember any specific threads where anything related to historical "YHWH" is discussed, then I would appreciate a link.Thanks and no problem if you cant remember! Edited by AdminPD, : Warning - Use the Quick Question thread for questions like this.

I was first going to post in the thread the Mod directed me to,then I was going to post in the one you directed me to.You might not see my comment the first(Mod thread) and the 2nd (your link) may not fit the YHWH topic(I could try but it may get the "OFF TOPIC do not reply" seal).Either way, I would have to post here to tell you where I post(lol), so Ill just post here again while deciding.Lets go to the MODS link and sort this out.I am wondering if there are links to old YHWH topics buried in certain threads.BTW,I do like the Mods "do not respond" seal.I think their reasoning is rock solid.They surely know that my first post was on topic (Genesis 1 and the specific scientific accuracy of the extant text) but saw it for what it was:a short reminder of differing paradigms (without regard to whether one was correct & if the other was of divine inspiration or not).They also knew that its usefulness had expired and would do nothing but lard the thread with a dozen posts on another side topic.

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).

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)

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) 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. 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")

Before I respond to you Equinox, it may do you well to see my posts (my posts were under a different screen name "mightyplacenimrod" which ironically refered to the historic name-in Sumerian- of the city of the mighty hunter..... though the actual name wasnt nun.ki) on these issues in this thread belowEvC Forum: The Aggadah of Genesis: In Conflict With Science?
http://EvC Forum: The Aggadah of Genesis: In Conflict With Science? -->EvC Forum: The Aggadah of Genesis: In Conflict With Science?My posts were around #100 (I made about 5 posts all from around 95-105).The last are under my new name here.It will help you understand my views better (you have gotten a few important ones very very wrong)Before I respond to you Equinox, it may do you well to see my posts (my posts were under a different screen name "mightyplacenimrod" which ironically refered to the historic name-in Sumerian- of the city of the mighty hunter..... though the actual name wasnt nun.ki) on these issues in this thread belowEvC Forum: The Aggadah of Genesis: In Conflict With Science?
http://EvC Forum: The Aggadah of Genesis: In Conflict With Science? -->EvC Forum: The Aggadah of Genesis: In Conflict With Science?My posts were around #100 (I made about 5 posts all from around 95-105).The last are under my new name here.It will help you understand my views better (you have gotten a few important ones very very wrong) The post I made in THIS thread (you responded to one)actually gave the EXACT general scholarly name of the 3 languages that lead to Hebrew.The first was "proto-Semitic" then came "west-Semitic" then "Canaanite".From Canaanite did Hebrew then come.The book Development of the Canaanite Dialects (Harris JAOS 1939) also wants to include "Amorite" into the Canaanite
category though Amorite is considered a split branch. We call the language "Amorite" as did the Sumerians. Somehow I doubt you have done a serious study of texts, history, and research in linguistic development.Plus you dont even know my views.See thread I refered you to.(reminder; I am just looking at what ancient peoples wrote down, and then stacking it up with comparitive anthropology and THEN looking at what is scientifically possible POSSIBLE) "you really have some basic homework to do" actually.I LOVE to see a thread where you show us the text of Genesis and then stack it beside the "copied stories".It may do you good to see you fumble all over yourself.You might notice FINALLY that oft-repeated cannards from the uneducated fall apart when research is done.Honestly, you are quite typical of many internet folk: about 100 years out of date in your "facts" which have long been modified and/or discarded. Do yourself a favor.Stay away from involving yourself in discussions of the comparative method lolHowever, I would be delighted if you could get the powers that be (mods) to transfer our exchange (and all its posts) to its own thread, because this thread has went to crap.I picked a bad thread to discuss this in.Be advised that I will be spending most of my posting time on the Biblical Conquest issues.So I wont be posting much on other issues (including this) for a while.This still needs its own thread though. Have you studied comparative anthropology and psychology as well as you studied linguistic development and the comparitive method of ANE texts? (lol) Did you miss my first "thorny" issue above(clearly!)? The issue that people (like you!) demand that Genesis should have seperated every last stage of evolution.Therefore the fact that it mentions the category of water life as coming before all other life (lets the waters bring...)simply isnt enough because people like you think it should be a 2007 science textbook to be credited as a document that could have (maybe) been descended of a revelation from God in the pre/proto historic period in amns past.I see it as day 1 (big bang), day 2 (atmosphere) (thus the logic of events suggests that the sun and planet formed in-between day 1 and 2)day 3 (land in one place seperate from waters, perhaps a pangea type of description?), day 3 then covers plants (using the sun and seasons to survive) , day 4 (water life), day 5 (land animals BEFORE man), day 6 (finally man LONG after life way already present). [qs] Then to try to claim that the words mean different things in Hebrew or that the ancients were too stupid to know any better only seem to dig the hole deeper. It seems much better just to avoid making the initial statement. [qs] I didnt say the ancients were stupid.I was simply describing the logical transmission of the text and what would happen in translation (and the expert scholars who produced the Dictionary of the Ancient Near East do say that the evidence indicates that Genesis existed BEFORE the Hebrew language did-so doh... it would need a translation)Equinox clearly is one of those kids who failed every teaching in school but self-esteme.Edited by Nimrod, : No reason given.

(in this thread)Dont debate anything that happened before ...say...the book of Kings.Debate Kings and later (and that doesnt mean "prophecy" covering events happening today-please dont)Once you can handle that, then slowly work your way back.Come to Genesis last.Why on earth people that may not be able to handle less controversay books (that is to say that I doubt they could handle the task of archaeological documentation) attempt to cover Genesis is simply amazing.Its like a 5 year old attempting to slam dunk on an NBA court.

Did you even bother to see the thread I linked you to?Here is a better way for you to find my posts.Click on my name in THIS post and see my post history.Click on the Babylonian Genesis Heidel (titled) post.But dont start there.I have 3 more posts (different screen name) in a row right above it.Plus there was 3-4 posts above that between Arach and me.It will be about 8 posts for you to read.Also,I need to advise you of something: I plan on making a new thread (if allowed) when I get a computer (and can paste better),and I intend to past EVERY last post I have made in this thread into the opening thread(s) of that new thread.Since I think (?) I have pasted every last comment of yours in my posts(here), then that means everybody will see your responces.Make then good beacuse many will see them for years right at the start of a thread.I dont plan on responding anymore on THIS thread so your next responce(s) will be the end of our debate (presently) BUT then I will past and respond to it sometime in the new thread (if the MODs allow me to start it) in the future.I advise you to start researching better before posting or you WILL be made into quite an example.Granted Creationists (at least the ones who post here) have no shame in
letting their unresearched crack show 24/7-post after post.Standards are rather low around here to be sure.