Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
70 online now:
jar, kjsimons, PaulK (3 members, 67 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,122 Year: 4,234/6,534 Month: 448/900 Week: 154/150 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Problems with Genesis: A Christian Evolutionist's View
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2901 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 6 of 200 (447121)
01-08-2008 5:33 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by willietdog
01-07-2008 8:39 PM


"1.Genesis says God created the Earth in 6 days."

Not so. The creation chapter does not infer 24-hour days, but cosmic days, namely these are epochs of time. The sun's luminosity came on the 4th cosmic day, thus 24-hour days are clearly out. In fact, the Genesis calendar, the oldest and most accurate one, begins with the birth of Adam, which is the New Year in the OT calendar, and its calculation of some 5700 years does not include the creation days of chapter one.

quote:
Genesis 1:3 ("Let there be Light") and Genesis 1:14-19 (creation of sun moon and stars) are used in the next two points.
2.How can there be light before there is a source?
3.we have all most fool proof evidence that the sun is older than the earth and that it is easily older than 6,000 y/o but this says earth was created first.

The sun was created in v.1, ['The Heavens'/ galaxies], as was everything in creation, but each factor was actualised later, in its due time. Thus, the light which genesis mentions is not star light, but its essential pre-sun light [essence of what light constitues]; the stars could not produce light unless this was a pre-existing entity. Stars do not give light in their embryotic phase, but only till they develop to a critical stage. Thus the star of the earth's solar system was already created in V.1., and is thus older than the earth, but it became 'luminous' at a point when the earth experienced rains.

quote:
4.We have clear fossil records that prove that life was created in this order: fish, then land animal, then bird not fish + bird then land animal

Not so: dinosaurs are bird derived, and not from animals. Genesis marks the first chronological listing of life forms, from where Darwin got his ToE. This listing is correct, namely fish, fowl, animals, humans. This list is more comprehensive than any other, and includes the vital pre-separation of the elements, required for life, namely the separation of water/land; day/night; etc., with representations for mammals, insects [creepy crawlies], bacteria and virus [swarms]. the genesis description must cater to all genrations of mankind in its understanding; thus even quarks are represented ['dust']. The species are also better represented than in ToE, which cast humans along with animals, by focusing only on the skeletal and biological imprints - thereby totally ignoring the most powerful factor of speech. Genesis correctly seperates the species ['kinds'] by allocating speech endowed humans varied from all other life firms. This is vindicated: despite the premise of ToE's adaptation and speciation, no other life form has evolved to acquire speech for 4.5 B years - speech being the single most powerful factor for any life form, and this despite that animals and birds are older, and possess a far more dexterious array of sound pitch criteria.

Evolution is a process, not a causative factor, and begins only 'after' a life form is already pre-existing it. The variance of the genesis and Darwin modes of evolution is the 'seed' factor, which is totally disregarded from ToE, while this is the only factor which can evidence ToE. Namely, ToE must subsist without the seed factor to prove its viability. This problem is not suffered by genesis, which posits that all transmissions, including DNA and biological impressions, are able to be represented by the seed factor alone. The seed represents an outgrowth of a male and female duality.

The flood is a regional, not a global event, and refers only to the then known world. The animals listed are also domestic animals, with the preamble in this story being limited to 'Noah's household'[Genesis] - namely his possessions, animals and family. This we find no mention of tigers, snakes, elephants, etc in the ark contents listing. Grammer was introduced in the OT, which rules require the most coherent path be applied - namely it would be grammatically incorrect to include Tasmania and the Amazons in Noah's space-time, same as it would be unfeasable to include Jupiter in today's known world, despite it being possible that Jupiter may be conquered and accoutned 500 years from now. Noah is 5,500 years ago - before the Pyramids, Egypt and Babylon were yet evolved. A careful study of the exacting words in the texts will expose the correct and coherent position here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by willietdog, posted 01-07-2008 8:39 PM willietdog has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by jar, posted 01-08-2008 9:31 AM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 58 by bluescat48, posted 09-30-2008 2:18 PM IamJoseph has taken no action

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2901 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 7 of 200 (447122)
01-08-2008 6:06 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by willietdog
01-07-2008 9:05 PM


quote:
The Hebrews of the time of Moses were as primitive as it comes in the way of science and knowledge, certain things were unfathomable to them that were crucial in the explanation of the beginning of the universe. one of these was time.

'Primitive' is qualifiable. The hebrews were subjected to the most advanced laws of that time, many being controversial and novel upto today, 1000s of years before the rest of humanity could even digest these. These had to be inculcated over a 40 year period, including the first introduction of one day per seven of rest from work, animal and women's rights, intricate judiciary rights, cencus counts in the millions, democracy, Liberty, inalienable human rights, creationism, monotheism, etc. To boot, all this was in what is the world's first alphabetical 'books', which had to be understood.

With regards 'time', they had to be able to account for sunsets and sunrises, exacting dates of annual festival observances based on harvest, and the first lunar-solar calendar. Thus, primitive must be factored accordingly.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by willietdog, posted 01-07-2008 9:05 PM willietdog has taken no action

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2901 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 12 of 200 (447370)
01-09-2008 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by jar
01-08-2008 9:31 AM


Re: Need clarification.
quote:
In fact, the Genesis calendar, the oldest and most accurate one, begins with the birth of Adam, which is the New Year in the OT calendar, and its calculation of some 5700 years does not include the creation days of chapter one.
====================
Please provide the Chapter and verse in Genesis that supports your
assertion.

I'm certain we did this before?

quote:
The Hebrew Calendar: Origins and History.

7 Day Week:

The Jewish people were the first people to organize their life around the weekly cycle. They justified the seven day week on the basis of the verse from the Book of Genesis, where it is stated that G-d created the world in six days and on the seventh day He rested.

Here is a chart outlining the Hebrew name for the days of the week, its Gregorian calendar equivalent, and the meaning of each Hebrew name for the days of the week. As mentioned, the Hebrew names for the first six days of the week remind us that the spiritual goal of the week is the day of unity and wholeness - Shabbat or the Sabbath. Each day of the week reminds us that we are preparing for the "peace" - the "shalom" in Hebrew - meaning unity and wholeness - of Shabbat or the Sabbath:

Hebrew Name For The Days Of The Week / Gregorian Name For The Days Of The Week / Meaning of Hebrew Day Name:

Yom Rishon B'Shabbat Sunday the first weekday of the approaching Shabbat
Yom Sheini B'Shabbat Monday the second weekday of the approaching Shabbat
Yom Sh'lishi B'Shabbat Tuesday the third weekday of the approaching Shabbat
Yom Revi'i B'Shabbat Wednesday the fourth weekday of the approaching Shabbat
Yom Chamishi B'Shabbat Thursday the fifth weekday of the approaching Shabbat
Yom Shishi B'Shabbat Friday the sixth weekday of the approaching Shabbat
Shabbat Saturday Sabbath

***
Why is the Jewish Calendar a Lunisolar Calendar? (Lunisolar = follows the cycle of the moon I.E. lunar, and sun I.E. solar)
The Hebrews needed an understanding of astronomy in order to fix the dates of the festivals. The biblical commandment in the Hebrew Bible to "Keep the month of Aviv" or "Keep the month of Abib" (Deuteronomy 16:1) made it necessary to know the position of the sun. In addition, the biblical commandment to "Also observe the moon and sanctify it" (Exodus 12:1-2), also made it necessary to know the phases of the moon, hence the need for a lunisolar calendar.

When Does A Jewish Day Begin And End in the Jewish Calendar?
The Jewish day in the Jewish calendar begins at sundown and ends at nightfall on the following day. By extension, the Jewish Sabbath begins at sunset on Friday and ends with the appearance of three stars of the second magnitude on Saturday evening, which is estimated to occur when the sun is seven degrees below the horizon. The Hebrew Bible states: "And it was evening and it was morning", in that order (Examples are: Genesis 1:5, 1:8, and 1:13).

New Year; 1st Day of 1st Month.

The 1st day of Nissan or Nisan is also the date for the first month of the Hebrew/Jewish calendar, in other words, months in the Hebrew/Jewish calendar are numbered beginning with the month of Nissan or Nisan as explicitly stated in the Book of Exodus (Exodus 12:1-2) where it says about the month of Nissan or Nisan: "(G-d) said to Moshe and Aharon in the Land of Egypt, 'This month shall be for you the beginning of the months; it shall be for you the first of the months of the year”. In fact, the title "First of the Months" ("Rosh Hodashim" in Hebrew) is reserved in the Torah for the month of Nissan (Exodus 12:2).

Here is a table comparing the Hebrew/Jewish civil calendar and civil month number with the Hebrew/Jewish religious calendar and religious month number, respectively:

Civil Calendar Month Number Religious Calendar Month Number
Tishri 1 Nisan or Nissan
(Aviv = "Spring" in Hebrew) 1
Heshvan or Cheshvan 2 Iyar 2
Kislev 3 Sivan 3
Tevet 4 Tammuz 4
Shevat 5 Av 5
Adar 6 Elul 6
Nisan or Nissan (Aviv) 7 Tishrei 7
Iyar 8 Heshvan or Cheshvan 8
Sivan 9 Kislev 9
Tammuz 10 Tevet 10
Av 11 Shevat 11
Elul 12 Adar 12

Origin of 12 Months in the Year; The Annual Earth Revolution Period; Hours/Minutes/Seconds; The Zodiac.
The names of the Babylonian months come from the Akkadian language, a Semitic language which originated in the city of Akkad, in northern Babylonia. Akkadian was spoken in Babylonia before the 10th century B.C.E. By the late 10th century - early 9th century B.C.E., Aramaic replaced both Akkadian and Hebrew as the spoken language in Babylonia. By about 600 B.C.E., Babylonian astronomers had identified the ecliptic, meaning the sun's apparent course around the earth, and they divided this course into 12 parts (meaning they divided this course up into 12 months), each named for a constellation in which the sun rose during that period. The sun determined the length of the year by its passage through the 12 parts, with the moon passing through all of them in 29 1/2 days. Our horoscope is a direct descendant of the Babylonian system of calculation since the day, which was a 24-hour period, was broken up into 12 segments, the 12 segments into periods of 30-degree segments each, and those, in turn, broken down into 60 minutes and finally further divided into 60 seconds. The Babylonian year began at the first New Moon (actually the first visible crescent) after the Vernal Equinox. Later on, the Greeks adopted this method of dividing up the heavens and time, calling this set of 12 calendrical constellations, the zodiac ("zodion" means "animal figure" in Greek). The beginning of the Babylonian month in the Babylonian calendar was determined by the direct observation by priests of the young crescent moon low on the western horizon at sunset after the astronomical New Moon. This custom is remembered in Judaism and Islam with the principle that the new calendar day begins at sunset.

Pre Babylonian Hebrew Calendar
In Pre-Exilic times (meaning prior to 587 B.C.E. or 586 B.C.E., before the Babylonians conquered the Kingdom of Judah), the names of four months are mentioned: Aviv or Abib (first), Ziv (second), Eisanim or Ethanim (seventh), and Bul (eighth). However, these four names are actually derived from the Canaanites and at least two of these names are Phoenician names. All four references to these month names are mentioned in the account of Solomon's relation with the Phoenicians and their assistance with the construction of the First Temple (1 Kings 6:1, 6:37, 6:38; 8:2).

Hebrew Calendar References in the Torah:

• The Jewish calendar has 12 lunar months (from crescent to crescent) of 29 or 30 days each (1 Kings 4:7).
• The Jewish civil year begins with the 7th religious year month, which is Eisanim or Ethanim/Tishrei or Tishri, and is in either September or October in the Gregorian calendar (Exodus 23:16, Exodus 34:22).
• Agricultural year - autumn (early rains), winter (rains), spring (latter rains), summer (long, hot, dry).
• Sabbatical years (every 7th year).
• No sowing or reaping (Leviticus 25:2, 25:7, 25:20, 25:22).
• Cancel debts (Deuteronomy 15:1).
• Fellow Hebrew servants released (Deuteronomy 15:12).
• Jubilee years (after 7 weeks of years, 50th year) (Leviticus 25:8-12).
• Land returns to original owners (Leviticus 25:13-17, 25:23, 25:24).
• Biblical days go from sundown to sundown (Genesis 1:5, 1:8, 1:13, 1:19, 1:23, 1:31; Leviticus 23:27, 23:32; Numbers 19:16, 19:19).
• 1 hour = 1/12 the period from sunrise to sunset.
• Example hours: 1st = 6-7 P.M., 3rd = 8-9 P.M., 6th = 11 P.M. - Midnight, 9th = 2-3 A.M., 12th = 5-6 A.M.
• Note that Roman hours started from midnight, rather than from sundown.
• The night was divided into 3 watches of 4 hours each.
• 7 day weeks with the 7th day (Saturday) being the weekly Shabbat or Sabbath.
• Note that there is no physical cycle of 7 days, it came from G-d in Eden (Genesis 2:2-3; Exodus 20:8-11) and is based on mathematical calculations.
• All dates are based on the Jewish religious calendar (where 1/1 is first day of Aviv/Nisan or Nissan)
• There were 7 special annual ceremonial events I.E. sacred assemblies, feasts (Leviticus 23:1-44)
• Omer Offering: 1/16, the day after the 1/15 ceremonial Sabbath (Leviticus 23:10-14 compare Leviticus 23:6 and Leviticus 23:14)
• A sheaf of the first fruits of the barley harvest is waved before the L-rd.
• Shavuot (Feast of Harvest, Feast of Weeks): 3/6, 7 weeks (50 days inclusive) starting from the Day of the Omer Offering or the Day of Wave Sheaf (2nd evening of Passover/Pesach) (Exodus 23:15-21, Exodus 34:22, Leviticus 23:15,16, Numbers 28:26-31, Deuteronomy 16:9-11)
• The ceremonial Sabbaths were distinguished from the weekly Sabbaths of the Ten Commandments (Leviticus 23:1-4, 23:37, 23:38).
• Where in the Hebrew Bible is the date of Passover mentioned? Answer: Exodus 12:1-14, 34:25, Leviticus 23:5, Numbers 28:16, and Deuteronomy 16:1-8, 16:12.
• Where in the Hebrew Bible does it mention the length of the Passover festival? Answer: Exodus 23:15, Exodus 34:18, Leviticus 23:6-8, Numbers 28:17-25, and Deuteronomy 16:3, 16:4, 16:8.
• Festival of the Passover (I.E. lamb) Offering: 1/14 (Exodus 12:1-14, Exodus 34:25, Leviticus 23:5, Numbers 28:16, Deuteronomy 16:1-8,12)
• Rosh Ha-Shanah: 7/1 (Leviticus 23:23-25, Numbers 29:1-6).
• Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement): 7/10 (Leviticus 16, Leviticus 23:27-32, Numbers 29:7-11).
• Cleansing of the sanctuary and the genuine people of G-d (Leviticus 16:17,30,33).
• Sukkot (Feast of Tabernacles, Feast of Ingathering)
• 7/15 - 7/21 (seven days) (Exodus 23:16, Exodus 34:22, Leviticus 23:33-43, Numbers 29:12-38, Deuteronomy 16:13-15).
• Simchat Torah: Rejoicing, joy complete (Leviticus 23:40, Deuteronomy 16:14,15).
• Shemini Atzeret: The closing assembly of the annual festival cycle (Leviticus 23:36,37)

Additional Notes:

While in captivity in Babylonia, the Jews began a strict observance of Shabbat, or the Sabbath, which is the period of rest on the seventh day. Since the exiled Jews in Babylonia were unable to pray in their Temple in Jerusalem, it having been destroyed by the Babylonians when they conquered the Kingdom of Judah in 587 B.C.E. or 586 B.C.E., and deporting most of the Jews to Babylonia, the Jews created in time what they lost in space: giving the seventh day of the week (Saturday) to G-d in the form of Shabbat, or the Sabbath. In fact, Shabbat is so holy to the Jewish people that in the Jewish calendar, the days are designated by their position in relation to Shabbat I.E. the sixth day before Shabbat, the fifth day before Shabbat, and so on. Exodus 20:8-11 reflects how the week is deeply embedded in Biblical tradition. The "day of rest", the seventh day, is in fact part of the 10 Commandments: "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the L-rd thy G-d; in it thou shalt not do any work...For in six days the L-rd made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested on the seventh day: wherefore the L-rd blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it" (Exodus 20:8-11).


quote:
Please provide a cite to the study that shows that dinosaurs are not animals.

Today's birds were Jurasic dinousaurs, is my understanding. Animals did not come before birds.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by jar, posted 01-08-2008 9:31 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by DrJones*, posted 01-09-2008 2:07 AM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 19 by jar, posted 01-09-2008 8:28 AM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 56 by gluadys, posted 09-30-2008 1:55 PM IamJoseph has taken no action

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2901 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 14 of 200 (447375)
01-09-2008 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by nwr
01-08-2008 8:39 AM


Re: Welcome
quote:
Genesis 1 presents a primitive pre-scientific account of the world.

Chellenge: care to post any other document with 5% of the scientific stats listed previously? Which other document stated the universe is finite - before genesis, or how long after?

quote:

It describes the sky as a rigid ceiling (firmament). It describes this sky as being luminous during the day but not at night. This luminosity is created with "let there be light", and is independent of the sun. That is, the light in the sky is its own source.


Really? Care to evidence your claim? As I said before, grammar was inroduced in the OT, and there is no science w/o correct comprehension. My comprehension of this text says the firmament refers to the bottom of earth, not the sky, and relates to the separation of land from water, a vital pre-action for life. Please consider:

quote:
'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.'

This too is wrong:

quote:
It describes this sky as being luminous during the day but not at night. This luminosity is created with "let there be light", and is independent of the sun. That is, the light in the sky is its own source

Yes, the point made by genesis is, the sun produces light, because light pre-exists the sun - else the sun could not produce light. Analogy: water; tap. Does the water pre-exist the tap?

quote:
As you point out, the sun, moon, stars were created later. They are described as some sort of lighting fixtures installed in the ceiling.

No, I never said that. Only the luminocity appeared later. The lighting fixtures you speak of, came from the greeks, a 1000 years later, which produced the flat earth scenario via christianity. In fact, when one examines the OT calendar, there is no other concluding other than that the earth is a spherical, moving body. There is no hint or remote inference of a flat earth in the OT!

quote:
However, it is a quite natural and simple description for the primitive people for whom this account of creation was intended.

Creationists are in total denial of this. Though they claim to be literalists, they insist on nonliteral readings of this text so that they can delude themselves that it is not hopelessly wrong.


Yes, I've seen those greek drawings. You are displaying a poor history knowledge here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by nwr, posted 01-08-2008 8:39 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by nwr, posted 01-09-2008 8:39 AM IamJoseph has taken no action
 Message 57 by gluadys, posted 09-30-2008 2:13 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2901 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 15 of 200 (447376)
01-09-2008 2:27 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by DrJones*
01-09-2008 2:07 AM


Re: Need clarification.
No contest - with qualification.

But the species that fly ['fowl'/Genesis] came after fish, chronologically. Then came mammals.

ToE lists humans as animals too, while genesis lists humans as a seperate species, and shows that skeletal and biological factors do not rule here: Adatation never produced speech, despite animals and birds being older life forms, and speech being the most powerful adaptation tool. Obviously, Adaptation is not limited to the time factor in this instant, and became possessed by the most recent, last life form: an anomoly. Yes/No?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by DrJones*, posted 01-09-2008 2:07 AM DrJones* has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by gluadys, posted 09-30-2008 1:50 PM IamJoseph has taken no action

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2901 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 16 of 200 (447379)
01-09-2008 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by ICANT
01-09-2008 1:21 AM


Re: Re-Genesis
You are correct that Genesis does NOT say the universe was created in 6 days, and that there is clearly a source listed for the effect of light, in the same verse light is introduced. It is the anti-creationists who are the unsceintific ones here, giving no cause for their effect. But we have a problem here: it is a taboo for a assumed scientific person to admit being wrong, and be whipped by an assumed mythical theology. I fully symphatise, but science itself was introduced in this mythical theology: follow the thread of history, and ask if we would have cosmology or astronomy today, w/o the recording of a finite universe - which compelled man to ask further subsequent and relevent questions? It certainly compelled one to ask questions - and the most scientific premise of Monotheism was born.

quote:

You say we have all most fool proof evidence. I would like to see proof concerning when the sun was created and the earth as far as that matters.

The sun was creaed in V.1: 'IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS' - this refers to the galaxies and stars. When we check further, only the sun's luminosity is referred to:

quote:
16 And God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; and the stars.

The word, 'LIGHT' [Luminosity] is used here, to give such luminocity at night.

quote:

Man has no Evidence of how the universe was started nor from what.

Correct, and this was first stated in genesis.

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by ICANT, posted 01-09-2008 1:21 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by arachnophilia, posted 01-09-2008 3:11 AM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 36 by ICANT, posted 01-10-2008 8:31 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2901 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 18 of 200 (447385)
01-09-2008 3:38 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by arachnophilia
01-09-2008 3:11 AM


Re: Re-Genesis
quote:
no, joseph, the other form meaning "source of light" is used here. compare:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, יְהִי אוֹר; וַיְהִי-אוֹר
v'yo'amar elohim "yehey or!", v'yehey or.
and god said, "be, light!" and light was.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
וַיַּעַשׂ אֱלֹהִים, אֶת-שְׁנֵי הַמְּאֹרֹת הַגְּדֹלִים
v'y'as elohim et-ha-shani ha-maorot ha-gdolim
and god made the two great lights
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

you could render the second as "luminaries" or "lamps" if you wish, but it means "source of light." the first is just light in general, and the days are evidently lit.


Propostrous. You are wrong on two counts: the word 'source', or result, etc are not in the text, while it is contextually posited only with light as in lumonosity; making the night bright; etc. The second wrong count is that the sun was created along with the galaxies [heavens], in V.1., making your premise superfluous. There is not single grammatical error in the OT, which says something for a 3,500 year document.

quote:
You are correct that Genesis does NOT say the universe was created in 6 days,

there is no word for "universe" in biblical hebrew. nor is there for "planet" btw. but the picture genesis presents is the whole of known creation. that is, after all, the point of writing, "when god began creating..." as the very first words. there can be nothing before this point, by definition.


The word 'olam' = world in generic, while the earth = both this planet, and earth as in physicality and matter. It would have been grammaitcally wrong to mention the universe to the people of that spacetime; thus the OT uses words which can be understood by all generations.

quote:

the cause is god. god commands light to exist, and it does. why does it need a source?

The point here is, a source is named, while its antithesis has no source, thus no cause for effect.

quote:

I fully symphatise, but science itself was introduced in this mythical theology: follow the thread of history, and ask if we would have cosmology or astronomy today, w/o the recording of a finite universe - which compelled man to ask further subsequent and relevent questions? It certainly compelled one to ask questions

...so the authors of the bible got it wrong, and this compelled scientists to get it right? i'm not sure what you're trying to say here.


Its not confusng. science evolved, via ups and downs, but it had to begin somewhere, by a compelling, challenging tought - which is the OT. Unless someone can posit another previous or near the same time, even a document a 1000 years later than the OT, which makes stats which leads to science? I find literally millions of stats in the OT words and verses as scientifically, historically and geographically vindicated, while it displays such with bold, specific dates and names. Remember, the most controversial and risk prone stat today is that speech endowed humans are some 6000 years old, and that the pig has a hidden biological attribute not shared by any other life form: we cannot disprove these today, despite every advancement.

There is an unscientific display by the anti-creationists, who have much to loose: they cannot acknowledge what is blatant, because it is the document which spurred their premises. But my pursuit s truth, and this is nly possible via truthfulness.

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by arachnophilia, posted 01-09-2008 3:11 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by arachnophilia, posted 01-10-2008 5:29 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2901 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 30 of 200 (447785)
01-10-2008 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by jar
01-09-2008 8:28 AM


Re: Need clarification.
quote:
I still need the chapter and verse from Genesis that supports a calendar, not a cut-n-paste from some website.

My bad - I only gave you about 50 quites from the OT.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by jar, posted 01-09-2008 8:28 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by jar, posted 01-10-2008 7:34 PM IamJoseph has taken no action

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2901 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 31 of 200 (447786)
01-10-2008 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by jar
01-09-2008 8:28 AM


Re: Need clarification.
quote:
I still need the chapter and verse from Genesis that supports a calendar, not a cut-n-paste from some website.

My bad - I only gave you about 50 quotes from the OT.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by jar, posted 01-09-2008 8:28 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by jar, posted 01-10-2008 7:32 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2901 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 34 of 200 (447790)
01-10-2008 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by arachnophilia
01-10-2008 5:29 PM


Re: Re-Genesis
quote:
see that great big "mem" on the beginning of the second one? in general, it's a prefix that means "where."

"FROM"

quote:
heaven is created on day two.

My bad - my version says V.1.:

'Gen. 1/1:"IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH'.

quote:
it rather clearly applies to the rest of the chapter which follows and not a creative action of its own.


'Its a heading, like a preamble, to the follow-up context, which expands on the chronological aspect of how the creating process was made - the reason I say this is a scientific document. "Everything" occured in the one instant - but was revealed later in its due time. The entire OT writings follow this correct mode:

'AND I WILL GIVE YOU YOUR RAINS IN ITS DUE TIME - THE EARLY RAINS AND THE LATTER RAINS"

'THERE IS NOTHING NEW'.

The hit songs to be written tomorrow already exists. Else they could not be written. Your reading makes the first verse superfluous - a no go.

quote:
The word 'olam' = world in generic

that's modern hebrew. in biblical hebrew, olam means "eternity."

while the earth = both this planet, and earth as in physicality and matter.

eretz means "land" or "country" or "ground." the concept of a planet, in the modern sense, just does not exist in the bible.


Eretz = earth, also used as land. Olam = world, generically, as in the world to come ['olam haba']. The term planet is a recent knowledge, and would be inappropriate here, notwithstanding there is no evidence of another populated world elsewhere.

quote:

It would have been grammaitcally wrong to mention the universe to the people of that spacetime; thus the OT uses words which can be understood by all generations.

"grammatically wrong?"


Yes. There is both the object and the subject which must be regarded. It would be inappropaite to talk to a new born baby about the universe. Later generations can conclude its relevancy today by deliberating the texts correct.y - by intergrating all other verses.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by arachnophilia, posted 01-10-2008 5:29 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by ICANT, posted 01-10-2008 9:12 PM IamJoseph has taken no action
 Message 40 by arachnophilia, posted 01-12-2008 12:09 AM IamJoseph has taken no action

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2901 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 35 of 200 (447793)
01-10-2008 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by jar
01-10-2008 7:32 PM


Re: Need clarification.
I gave these. When the relevent verses are examined, it forms the basis of a calendar, devised and active for 3,500 years. Unlike other calendars, the OT calendar required counting days of the year - for annual festival observances; years passed for the 50 year jubilee; and days of the week, and critical times of the day of the sun sets for the sabbath. Thus this the first calendar based on solar [for years], lunar [for seasons], and earthly movements [for days and time measurements]. It was a new thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by jar, posted 01-10-2008 7:32 PM jar has taken no action

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2901 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 37 of 200 (447798)
01-10-2008 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by ICANT
01-10-2008 8:31 PM


Re: Just to set the Record Straight
quote:
You left the 3. off of the quote which designated that was point 3 in the OP.

V3 refers to light per se, as an independent entity, as opposed to starlight.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by ICANT, posted 01-10-2008 8:31 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by ICANT, posted 01-10-2008 10:09 PM IamJoseph has taken no action

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2901 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 46 of 200 (448331)
01-13-2008 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by arachnophilia
01-12-2008 11:04 PM


Re: Re-Genesis
"b'" = IN; "yom" = DAY. So you get, IN THAT DAY. It can be employed as 'THEN', 'WHEN', etc, depending on its contextual usage.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by arachnophilia, posted 01-12-2008 11:04 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by arachnophilia, posted 01-13-2008 12:14 AM IamJoseph has taken no action

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2901 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 61 of 200 (484696)
10-01-2008 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by gluadys
09-30-2008 2:13 PM


LET THERE BE LIGHT! I SAY.
quote:
Grammar, in fact, is a function of all language, and, according to Noam Chomsky

Of course, language, thus grammar, is hard wired, and this says language did not/could not, be a result of accumulated evolution from grunts and hisses. That the OT introduced grammar refers to only what it says, without contradictions, that this faculty was introduced here, and is alligned with speech [as opposed communication], and is inherent only with one life form. This was not an original premise of Chomsky, who exploited some ancient lessons and passed it on with some embelishments to the world; he also admits speech poses a great difficulty for evolution: its sudden emergence, without evidential imprints throughout all past times, denies adaptation of the most powerful tool in the universe: speech.

quote:

AFAIK the earliest and most comprehensive of grammars was that developed for Sanskrit.


Not true. We have no sanskrit alphabetical books pre-OT, and never mind grammar. Sanskrit is not that old. A 'book' is a multi-page, continuous narrative, and alphabeticals is an advanced writing form which displays the inclinations of grammatical expressionisms, as opposed picture writings.

The OT writings also self contain numerals, whereby it can be verified for its grammar as well as its accuracy. You will note that with the giving of the Ten Commandments, for example, there is a verse which says 'REMEMBER *THIS* DAY AS THE SATURDAY. If you check *THIS* day, it alligns with the entire 2,500 year period of 1000s of dates and life spans displayed in the OT, and when calculated, we see the 10 Cs were indeed given on a Saturday. What has this to do with grammar? If you don't know maths and the history of what your saying, there is a good chance your grammar is wanting too.

quote:
where?

In every verse, in its mode of adopting the closest distance between two words, and using the most applicable words. The OT verses cannot be reduced to a shorter form without loss of grammar, nor can it be said better by elongations, and this represents the epitomy of this faculty - far ahead of, and pre-dating Shakespear, aside from its verses and slogans being the world's most utilised portions of languages by poets, authors, science and other theologies and beliefs.

Try to better: 'MAN AND WOMAN CREATED HE THEM'? Or starting a book on Creation [origins of the universe], with a better first line preamble than 'IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH' - guess why heavens is plural and earth singular - obviously because the OT is speaking in the language of the peoples it addresses as the subject? Try making your language understandable to all generations of mankind - would you use the word 'DUST' or Quarks as a basic sub-atomic [small] building element? What about the term CREATE - the true, technical meaning of this word is only derived in Genesis, used only once in the first creation chapter, replaced with 'FORMED' in the rest of the five books. Because 'something from nothing' can only happen once, and therafter we can only derive something from something else.

The OT appears to understand human minds with unequalled anticipatory responsa: when Moses asks God who God is, what is his power, we find the answer is one which transcends time and space, namely the God of Abraham - who lived 400 years before Moses and in another country. Genesis is also the first document which introduced the premise of a finite universe [There was a BEGINNING], and that infinity refers to NO CHANGE [all other depictions fail the infinity test, including any attempted by science]. This is supreme, unequalled grammar.

quote:

Where does the OT include grammar lessons?



Note to self: order replacement irony meter. An eye for an eye?

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by gluadys, posted 09-30-2008 2:13 PM gluadys has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by gluadys, posted 10-01-2008 2:18 AM IamJoseph has taken no action

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2901 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 64 of 200 (484705)
10-01-2008 4:43 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by anglagard
10-01-2008 3:44 AM


Re: LET THERE BE LIGHT! I SAY.
quote:
He simply implies that without writing there can be no speech

This is a distortion. There is a deflective claim that speech cannot be proven without writings, which seeks to ignore the blatant fact we have no proof of speech pre-6000, and which cannot be a mere co-incidence in Genesis.

The writings has no impact here, as earlier speech can be recalled. My test for this issue is let them produce a 'NAME' - the true evidence of human speech, and there is 100s of 1000s years of alledged speech periods to come up with one. In fact, we have no wars, nations, kings, folk songs, recipies - nothing which accounts for human speech or what the human mind can easilly recall.

And speech does not become proven by skeletal remains or doctored scratchings in caves, a primal error by Darwin in using this criteria to place humans in the animal species - these also contradict the speech endowed human population and their mental prowess imprints. To cast this response as not believing in science is some stretch! The first scientific statement on the universe being finite comes from genesis - well before the term was invented.

quote:

Chomsky is the finest linguist of this (and perhaps any) generation.


Not from the POV genesis's statements predated him, and he largely comes to the same conclusion: the advent of speech is a unique occurence in the known universe, and we cannot account, explain or define its occurence - while also maintaining the factor of adaptation, which is time dependent. Birds are older and have greater phonation dexterity than humans, the last [recent] life form: no elevationary adaptation here, no?

quote:

But he is a linguist, not a biologist, nor has he made any in-depth studies of animal communicative patterns.


Irrelevent. Biologists have made even greater errors on this issue, and have no answers for speech's occurence. There is only so much of spin and manourverings one can make without definitive proof, while ignoring the amazing, inexplicable specificity of genesis deeming speech less than 6000 years old, and being vindicated to the exact year. There is only OT-phobia and paranoia in this blindness.

quote:

A newer generation of linguists (Steve Pinker, Christine Kenneally, Sue Savage-Wambaugh, et al) have made considerable strides in working out the evolution of human speech from non-human communication.

Really!? - did they explain why we have not a single 'name' pre-6000, or did they say human minds also alligned with writings on that exact date too? Maybe they have better excuses than before?

quote:

Grammar is not about what a text says.


'How' it is said.

quote:

We have no sanskrit alphabetical books pre-OT, and never mind grammar. Sanskrit is not that old.

That doesn't mean it does not have the oldest codified grammar.


Yes it does. It means you cannot say Sanskrit grammar predates the OT grammar. And to be grammatical, at least alphabeticals apply.

quote:

Indeed, this sounds more like a reference to numerology than to grammar.


No, it does not refer only to numerals. The word 'THIS DAY' also applies to a pointed addressing it is connecting history with a contemporary time - 'ironically'; expressionism like that is fully vested in grammatics.

quote:

It would appear that your specialty is the study [sic] of scripture. I expect my years studying language and linguistics and teaching English and French composition and grammar give me a greater claim to understand what grammar is.


This depends if you come up with something new or contradicting to Genesis. Did you - so why sic?

quote:

In every verse,

In short, nowhere.


How many grammatically inclined expressionisms in 'LET THERE BE LIGHT'? Do you percieve maybe a metaphor and analogy here, as this verse is used today in so many applications? It never came from Sancrit either?

quote:

What about the term CREATE - the true, technical meaning of this word is only derived in Genesis, used only once in the first creation chapter,

Actually it is used 3 times in Gen. 1 (vs 1, 21 & 27)


I said this word is limited to the CREATION CHAPTER in Genesis. You have not made any new input by your response, other than affirm my point. Let's hope you now understand there is a difference between bara and all other words which denote form! Remember where this thought came from.

quote:

'bara' doesn't mean something from nothing.


Yes it does. If the texts is correctly comprehended, it very clearly says there was 'nothing' else around at one time, and then there was 'something', as with 'light'. Appears your grammar is being hampered by a lack of contextual comprehension.

quote:
It is a verb which always has God as its subject, but what God is said to create does not necessarily come from nothing. e.g. "See I have created (bara) the smith who blows the fire of coals and produces a weapon fit for its purpose" Isaiah 54:16

Again, this is not reflected in the Genesis texts, which you appear to ignore in a deficient manner. Isaiah does not relate to genesis; genesis relates to genesis.

quote:

This is supreme, unequalled grammar.
No, it is theology.

Its 'writings', specifically the first occurence of grammatical books. Using the deflective, cowardly term of theology does not get you a win here, but it will get other cowardly deflectors a horrah for you. The term theology is recent, and should not apply to Genesis, which predates today's theologies more than 2000 years.

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by anglagard, posted 10-01-2008 3:44 AM anglagard has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by gluadys, posted 10-01-2008 8:55 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022