Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9073 total)
69 online now:
AZPaul3, jar, kjsimons, PaulK, Tangle, Tanypteryx (6 members, 63 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,288 Year: 4,400/6,534 Month: 614/900 Week: 138/182 Day: 18/27 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Problems with Genesis: A Christian Evolutionist's View
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2907 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

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 47 of 200 (448334)
01-13-2008 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by IamJoseph
01-13-2008 12:03 AM


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.

yes, it begins a dependent clause. in this usage, the "day" part is rather non-literal. it's an idiom meaning "when." it is used to say, "when something happened, something else happened."

why would it mean 24hrs here, but not in verse 17? both mean "when"


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by IamJoseph, posted 01-13-2008 12:03 AM IamJoseph has taken no action

  
sl33w
Member (Idle past 4971 days)
Posts: 53
Joined: 05-23-2008


Message 48 of 200 (474965)
07-12-2008 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by willietdog
01-07-2008 8:39 PM


No Such Thing as Christian/Evolutionist
To: Willetdog

1) You should take a refresher course in grade school grammar.

A) Christians believe in Anointed (Christ to Catholics).
B) Evolutionists DO NOT BELIEVE in Anointed (Christ to Catholics).

Col 1.16, Anointed created ALL. That leaves not an inch for evolution; or, Atheism.

2) Quote: "There is no proof for a 6,000 year old earth"; paraphrased.

REBUTTAL. Luke 3.1: "In 15th year of Tiberius Caesar ..."

This is recorded: AD 14 (Webster's Dictionary) + 14 = AD 28 to AD 29.

Now then, we add the genealogies, and periods of prophecy to AD 28 -- and, we find -- "Beginning of Time" (Gen 5.1) = 4,148 BC.

We find: "the Flood"; 2492 BC.
Promise to Abram; 2065 BC.
Exodus; 1625 BC. The Father of Darkness (Pope) teaches only 40 years in wilderness.'
34 years Joshua drove out 7 natons; to 1560 BC.
Israel a nation 502.5 years; to 588 BC.
And, etc. -- both ways.

If you have a solid grade school education, all of these things are elementary.

"Mathematics is the most exact science known to man" - Unknown.
[I have read this from many writers.]

But then Atheistic Evolution has no scientific principes to rest upon. It is "all theory" and most limited to the German Atheists of the 1880s.

"The Living God who sends floods, wars, tornados, hurricanes, mosoons, droughts, wars and peace," does not engage in speculations.
He "declares the End from the Beginning" - Isa 46.10.

For instance, in AD 67, when Iesous had John write the Revelation of Him, He declared Babylon would fall -- in one day -- in one hour; Rev 18.2, 6, 10.
One Day was: June 4,1959 (battle of Magenta), and On Hour was Sept. 20, 1870; both recorded in all encyclopedias; see: "Italy."
Babylon lst 2 thirds of her territories in one year, and her city in one hour.

These events are recorded in "A Dictionary of the Popes", Oxford Press.

sl33w


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

  
Bruce1651
Junior Member (Idle past 4975 days)
Posts: 4
From: United States
Joined: 07-13-2008


Message 49 of 200 (475198)
07-14-2008 12:03 AM


A different look at Genesis
I've read most of the posts here, and I'd like to propose a different side of the problem of Genesis that perhaps some of you haven't considered. It goes like this:

The days of the week have had names as far back as can be traced, some trace the names back to the ancient Sumerians. The Sumerians worshipped the Sun, the Moon, and the planets. From what I understand, there are five planets that they knew of that are visible without a telescope: Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. The planets acted differently (they had orbits) than the stars, and so were considered gods. Each planet had its day. Sunday was a day in honor of the Sun god, Monday was a day in honor of the Moon god, and so on to Saturday, which was a day in honor of their god Saturn. There were seven days in the week because there were seven gods to be worshipped.

Now the ancient Hebrews did not have names for the days of the week. This is critical evidence, because they have names for everything else, such as months, and seasons, etc. Why wouldn't they have names for the days of the week? If Genesis had come first, that would have been what what was expected. Some have argued that the Hebrews did not name the days because these were considered gods by the surrounding nations, and they did not want to give any honor to these gods. This is the same with Genesis. The days of the week certainly had names when Genesis was written, but these names are not included because they were gods. Therefore it is simply called "the first day", and "the second day", etc.

Genesis, by this viewpoint, is not written as a creation account, but is written as a refutation to the surrounding nations as to who created the world. It wasn't the seven gods of the Sumerians, it was the One and only God of the Hebrews. The acts of creation on each of these seven days are direct stabs at the supposed responsibilities of each of these gods. The sun god was responsible for light, but alas, it was Yahweh who created the light, not the sun god, therefore showing that Yahweh is everything, and the sun god is nothing. It works the same with the other days of creation.

There is much more to be stated on this theory, but I have given a broad overview, and I hope it is understandable. Please let me know your thoughts.

Thanks,
Bruce


  
Hawkins
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 150
From: Hong Kong
Joined: 08-25-2005


Message 50 of 200 (484624)
09-30-2008 5:15 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by willietdog
01-07-2008 8:39 PM


Hi willietdog,
Our knowledge is bound by the 3D environment we are living in. If we are willing to open to possibility and grow our knowledge to what limited us. You may find that, 1) there is always an adjacent space for earth to be made in the 4th and upper spatial dimension, then Earth is put to its current position on day 4, thou by the limit of concept we assumed that planet earth is always in its current location.

Bear in mind that if Earch was not where it is now, Genesis can be literally correct.

Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.


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 51 by Huntard, posted 09-30-2008 5:21 AM Hawkins has replied
 Message 59 by gluadys, posted 09-30-2008 2:49 PM Hawkins has taken no action
 Message 60 by Buzsaw, posted 09-30-2008 11:10 PM Hawkins has taken no action

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 1534 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 51 of 200 (484625)
09-30-2008 5:21 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Hawkins
09-30-2008 5:15 AM


Hawkins writes:

Hi willietdog,
Our knowledge is bound by the 3D environment we are living in. If we are willing to open to possibility and grow our knowledge to what limited us. You may find that, 1) there is always an adjacent space for earth to be made in the 4th and upper spatial dimension, then Earth is put to its current position on day 4, thou by the limit of concept we assumed that planet earth is always in its current location.
Bear in mind that if Earch was not where it is now, Genesis can be literally correct.


I don't know exactly what you're on about here, but there is no "4th spatial dimension". There are only three.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Hawkins, posted 09-30-2008 5:15 AM Hawkins has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Hawkins, posted 09-30-2008 5:27 AM Huntard has replied

  
Hawkins
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 150
From: Hong Kong
Joined: 08-25-2005


Message 52 of 200 (484626)
09-30-2008 5:27 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Huntard
09-30-2008 5:21 AM


I don't know exactly what you're on about here, but there is no "4th spatial dimension". There are only three.

Have you heard of Quantum Physics or String Theory. It doesn't matter. Prove your claim scientifically please. If you can't (and you can't) that makes it your religious belief.

Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Huntard, posted 09-30-2008 5:21 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Huntard, posted 09-30-2008 5:35 AM Hawkins has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 1534 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 53 of 200 (484627)
09-30-2008 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Hawkins
09-30-2008 5:27 AM


Hawkins writes:

Have you heard of Quantum Physics or String Theory. It doesn't matter. Prove your claim scientifically please. If you can't (and you can't) that makes it your religious belief.


Yes I have, and they both only have three spatial dimensions. There are other dimensions in them, they are not spatial dimensions though. Furthermore, YOU make the claim there IS a 4th spatial dimension, it's up to YOU to prove it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Hawkins, posted 09-30-2008 5:27 AM Hawkins has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Hawkins, posted 09-30-2008 5:38 AM Huntard has taken no action

  
Hawkins
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 150
From: Hong Kong
Joined: 08-25-2005


Message 54 of 200 (484629)
09-30-2008 5:38 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Huntard
09-30-2008 5:35 AM


Yes I have, and they both only have three spatial dimensions. There are other dimensions in them, they are not spatial dimensions though. Furthermore, YOU make the claim there IS a 4th spatial dimension, it's up to YOU to prove it.

No, string theory advocates that gravity can penestrate 3D spaces. Actually, close-ended strings are on dimensional spaces planes while close-ended strings can travel through spaces.

Why should I prove it for you. You will experience it yourself anyway. By that time, you will know how your soul will function and perceive.

Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Huntard, posted 09-30-2008 5:35 AM Huntard has taken no action

  
gluadys
Member (Idle past 4201 days)
Posts: 57
From: Canada
Joined: 08-22-2008


Message 55 of 200 (484645)
09-30-2008 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by IamJoseph
01-09-2008 2:27 AM


Need more clarification.
IamJoseph writes:

No contest - with qualification.

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

I take it the earlier reference to "animals" was intended to be a reference to "mammals". Birds, mammals, reptiles, fish and insects, crustaceans and corals and sponges, to name only a few, are all animals.

Animals, therefore, existed even before fish.

Mammals did not come after birds. Mammals are derived from early synapsid (aka "mammal-like") reptiles and the dinosaur-bird group from early diapsid reptiles. These groups lived concurrently. Early mammals lived concurrently with dinosaurs in the Jurassic, even before the transition of theropod dinosaurs into birds.

Furthermore, the Genesis reference to "creeping things" in v. 24 refers inter alia to reptilian and invertebrate life meaning Genesis has the ancestors of birds (terrestrial reptiles) created on day 6 after birds on day 5 as well as all terrestrial invertebrate life such as ants,worms, spiders, etc.

Adatation never produced speech, despite animals and birds being older life forms, and speech being the most powerful adaptation tool.

These are a couple of ad hoc assertions without evidence to back them up. Who says adaptation never produced speech? Speech is certainly a powerful tool, but by what measure is it the most powerful adaptation?

I suggest reading The First Word by Christine Kenneally before coming to unwarranted conclusions on the evolution of speech.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by IamJoseph, posted 01-09-2008 2:27 AM IamJoseph has taken no action

  
gluadys
Member (Idle past 4201 days)
Posts: 57
From: Canada
Joined: 08-22-2008


Message 56 of 200 (484646)
09-30-2008 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by IamJoseph
01-09-2008 1:58 AM


Re: Need clarification.
quote:
The Hebrew Calendar: Origins and History.

I did not see a citation for this information. Where did it come from?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by IamJoseph, posted 01-09-2008 1:58 AM IamJoseph has taken no action

  
gluadys
Member (Idle past 4201 days)
Posts: 57
From: Canada
Joined: 08-22-2008


Message 57 of 200 (484648)
09-30-2008 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by IamJoseph
01-09-2008 2:19 AM


Re: Welcome
IamJoseph writes:


As I said before, grammar was inroduced in the OT

Where?

Grammar, in fact, is a function of all language, and, according to Noam Chomsky and other linguists, is hard-wired in the human brain. You may be referring to codified grammar which would only be introduced with writing, much later than the evolution of the grammatical structures that make coherent speech possible.

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

Where does the OT include grammar lessons?

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.

The firmament is called "Sky" in most English translations and "Heavens" (shamayim) in Hebrew. It is created on the second day. Land was parted from the waters "below the shamayim" on the third day.

It appears you have developed a very ad hoc exegesis of Genesis.

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!

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

Note to self: order replacement irony meter.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by IamJoseph, posted 01-09-2008 2:19 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by IamJoseph, posted 10-01-2008 12:43 AM gluadys has replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 3428 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 58 of 200 (484649)
09-30-2008 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by IamJoseph
01-08-2008 5:33 AM


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.

Not really do to the fact that it is a lunar calender and every three years it needs an additional month to keep the seasons in line. The Gregorian calender is much more accurate in that it only needs to add one day every 3000 years.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by IamJoseph, posted 01-08-2008 5:33 AM IamJoseph has taken no action

  
gluadys
Member (Idle past 4201 days)
Posts: 57
From: Canada
Joined: 08-22-2008


Message 59 of 200 (484652)
09-30-2008 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Hawkins
09-30-2008 5:15 AM


Hawkins writes:

Hi willietdog,
Our knowledge is bound by the 3D environment we are living in. If we are willing to open to possibility and grow our knowledge to what limited us. You may find that, 1) there is always an adjacent space for earth to be made in the 4th and upper spatial dimension, then Earth is put to its current position on day 4, thou by the limit of concept we assumed that planet earth is always in its current location.

Appealing to ad hoc speculation does not make a sound case for the scientific reliability of Genesis.

Bear in mind that if Earch was not where it is now, Genesis can be literally correct.

No, it doesn't since Genesis never refers literally to a 4th dimension. That simply distorts the text with a quirky interpretation for no other reason than to make it fit your preconception that Genesis must be "literally" correct.

But why does it matter if Genesis is not "literally" correct? It was never intended to be a science text.

It is amazing how often anti-evolutionists resort to extreme and highly un-literal interpretations to support a hermeneutic of the "literal correctness" of scripture.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Hawkins, posted 09-30-2008 5:15 AM Hawkins has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Buzsaw, posted 10-02-2008 10:49 PM gluadys has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 200 (484693)
09-30-2008 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Hawkins
09-30-2008 5:15 AM


Reading Genesis 1 Correctly
Hawkins writes:

Our knowledge is bound by the 3D environment we are living in. If we are willing to open to possibility and grow our knowledge to what limited us. You may find that, 1) there is always an adjacent space for earth to be made in the 4th and upper spatial dimension, then Earth is put to its current position on day 4, thou by the limit of concept we assumed that planet earth is always in its current location.
Bear in mind that if Earch was not where it is now, Genesis can be literally correct.

Earth has no need to have been moved to make Genesis 1 correct. You need to read thoughtfully and carefully, taking care not to add what is not in the words.

Genesis 1 says, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

Paraphrasing what it says: "In the beginning of the heavens, God created them and in the beginning of the earth, God created it. That's all it says in this opening preface to the chapter. All that statement is saying is whenever the heavens and earth were created, God did it. It doesn't give any information as to when each thing in the heavens was created or when planet earth was created.

This comes before day one when the Spirit of God begins God's work on the void dark waste of the surface of the planet.

Now, the Bible says God had no beginning and no end, i.e. is an eternal supreme creator. One aspect of the Biblical god, Jehovah is that he creates, re-vamps and destroys things in his universe to suit his own purposes and pleasure. So he has been creating, destroying and managing things in his universe forever.

The Bible says that God dwells in the heavens/cosmos and indicates that his abode is far more beautiful and wonderful than what we can imagine here on earth. He also has a host of angelic super human beings around him and moving about throughout the universe where ever he sends them or perhaps has them dwelling. We can't imagine how many billions of other creatures are out in the universe in various forms.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Hawkins, posted 09-30-2008 5:15 AM Hawkins has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022