Genesis 1 interpretation

quote:

---

I will start to say when i was younger i didnt believe in the Big Bang but Genesis 1 after all talks about it.

---

Newborn,Sounds like you could benefit from a bit of Sun Day School.http://www.sun-day-school.us/heaven_under_water.htmIf you have actually read the Bible and thought about it in a "scientific" frame of mind then you may find this page, and the site in general, rather illuminating.db------------------
"If God created Nature, then the Law of Nature is the Law of God."

You call this a reply?You have said nothing at all about Isaiah 7, nor anything about the Virgin.Pardon me, in case you are dislexic, disphasic, catatonic or incontinent. I wouldn't want to offend anyone who is truly incompetent, but I must ask:Do you own a dictionary?
Do you own a word program?
Do you attend elementary school?
Do you have spell-check on your email?
Do you have no one who can help you write?
Do you forget questions while seeking answers?Just curious.db

Boy O Boy, am I embarrassed. Seems I was responding to you on a different subject than the one in this thread. Sorry it took so long for me to discover this mistake. It is sometimes difficult to retrace one's steps here and I only now, quite accidentally, discovered that my first response to your post should have been placed in another thread. Wonder how that happened? On the subject of Genesis One ... If that is so, then why would you want to change his words, replacing "water" with "black hole" and such? What is your justification for changing "The Word of God." Why not, instead, try to understand it the way it is written? Understand it the way it was intended to be understood by the men who wrote it. At this rate, pretty soon, you won't trust any of your god's words to mean what they say.On second thought: That might not be so bad.Your analogy doesn't do anything for me. This is not about prophecy. It's about ancient cosmology; plain and simple. The same thing appeared in science textbooks all over the world in those days. It was intended to reveal a mystery, not create one.db

Try the third person singular.

An interesting thought but it doesn't address the question I posed for you.How do you justify putting words in God's mouth?
How do you justify editing the "Word of God " in the following ways?1) Reordering the sequence of events {stars before light and sun before vegetation};
2) Altering physical features {substituting "vapor canopy" for a solid Firmament};
3) Reversing cause and effect {uplift of earth versus subsidence of waters}; and
4) Quibbling over the timeframe {days versus aeons}?Furthermore - how do you explain that Genesis One is virtually identical with the Babylonian creation myth?db

WHY DID YOU ATTACH THIS MESSAGE TO MY POST?WHY HAVE YOU NOT RESPONDED TO MY POST? {#51} What? God isn't going to give them advanced knowledge? He's going to let them remain ignorant until the atheists figure out what is really going on? Them let then learn the truth from atheists? How do you justify putting words in God's mouth?
How do you justify editing the "Word of God " in the following ways?1) Reordering the sequence of events {stars before light and sun before vegetation};
2) Altering physical features {substituting "vapor canopy" for a solid Firmament};
3) Reversing cause and effect {uplift of earth versus subsidence of waters}; and
4) Quibbling over the timeframe {days versus aeons}?Furthermore - how do you explain that Genesis One is virtually identical to the Babylonian and very similar to other ancient creation myths?------------------
http://www.sun-day-school.us

Yet here you are attempting to tell the majority of scientists that they are wrong. Your thoughts and your arguments might improve if you could leave religion out of it long enough to reason scientifically. God is not a scientific concept, and your particular brand of religion is unacceptable to many, otherwise religious, scientists. How does this create the 'evening and morning' effect? It takes a lot of energy to accomplish photosynthesis; and that energy has to be present within a certain narrow bandwidth. Electron-positron anihilation on a scale large enough to produce enough light energy would surely produce other, unwanted, side effects. And what of the wavelengths? Is this a question or an answer? One must consider the effect of solar wind on water vapor; Or has the sun not yet been created? Nucleosynthesis is what goes on in stars. It is simply not going to occur in liquid water. Another question? Inventing new laws of physics are we? The man in question spent a lot of time here last year but showed us nothing which could satisfy the laws of physics as they are known. Besides, the scripture makes it clear that the author intended to indicate literal, twenty four hour, days. The other cosmologies came long before Genesis was written. Isn't it more likely that Genesis was copying the science of its own time? The pyramid is a natural/logical form in that it provides structural stability. The pyramid may be inspired by the cone. Even sand will assume a conical shape when poured out upon the ground. Religion is the invention of man. One does not need supernatural input to perceive the political advantage of controlling others.Thank you for your effort.------------------
"I was very unwilling to give up my belief." Charles Darwin