Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 73 (8962 total)
116 online now:
Coragyps, dwise1, jar, Phat (AdminPhat), ringo, vimesey (6 members, 110 visitors)
Newest Member: Samuel567
Post Volume: Total: 871,047 Year: 2,795/23,288 Month: 986/1,809 Week: 105/313 Day: 22/39 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biblical Creation / An Introduction
Percy
Member
Posts: 19426
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 1 of 24 (10)
01-01-2001 12:18 PM


This is message 6271 from the old club by Canonyz:

Was the Church right? Was Galileo wrong? On the 22nd of June, 1633, in the Convent Sopra Minerva, Galileo Galilei, at the age of seventy, signed a confession of recantation. On his knees he read it aloud, before the entire congregation of the Holy Office of the Inquisition. In this confession, prepare by the Inquisition, Galileo’s crime was identified as, “heretical depravity.” The part of that confession which is pertinent to our discussion reads,

“...I must altogether abandon the false opinion that the Sun is the centre of the world and is immovable, and that the Earth is not the centre of the world and moves ... the said false doctrine … is contrary to Holy Scripture …”

This position of the Roman Church was also the Protestant position. Johann Kepler, the great astronomer, was excommunicated from the Lutheran Church on similar grounds. Kepler maintained that the moon is a physical body. The Church maintained that the moon is only a light, as the Bible says, and a light is not a place!

Is heliocentric theory contrary to holy scripture? That opinion, that controversy, has faded into oblivion upon exploration of the moon and the advent of satellite technology. The Churches failed to maintain their case for a geo-centric universe. Protestants now use satellite television to attack scientific theories which are, “contrary to Holy Scripture.” Modern creationists seem to have forgotten the earthshaking controversy which ruined the careers of Bruno, Kepler and Galileo. Modern creationists seem to think that the holy scripture supports Copernicus. Were the Church’s scholars so ignorant? Are creationists today better informed? Exactly what does the Bible say about the universe?

Because creationists base their assumption on biblical text, I will present my analysis of that text. I believe the arguments are convincing but they do run contrary to popular creationist interpretation. The popular interpretation, I believe, takes unwarranted liberties with the text; is blind to related biblical evidence; discounts classical scholarship; and ignores a wealth of documentation regarding widely held and well publicized theories of ancient, “science.”

Due to the volume of material and complexity of proofs, I have opted to limit my presentation to a few salient points; just enough to establish, “reasonable doubt,” concerning the popular spin put on biblical, “facts.” When we exhaust these, I would be happy to consider related issues. Don’t feel badly should you learn something new here. After years of education, meditation and prayer I am still discovering, as if reading for the first time.

Sincerely,

canon

[This message has been edited by Percipient (edited 01-01-2001).]


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by canonyz, posted 01-24-2001 10:57 AM Percy has not yet responded

canonyz
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 24 (101)
01-24-2001 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Percy
01-01-2001 12:18 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:
This is from message 6271 in the old club, Here edited by canonyz:

In his confession, prepared by the Inquisition, Galileo’s crime was identified as, “heretical depravity.” On his knees before the Inquisition he read aloud:

“...I must altogether abandon the false opinion that the Sun is the centre of the world and is immovable, and that the Earth is not the centre of the world and moves ... the said false doctrine ... is contrary to Holy Scripture ...”

This position of the Roman Church was also the Protestant position. Johann Kepler, the great astronomer, was excommunicated from the Lutheran Church on similar grounds.


Is heliocentric theory contrary to holy scripture? Modern creationists seem to think that holy scripture supports Copernicus. Were Church scholars so ignorant? Are creationists today better informed? Exactly what does the Bible say about the universe?

The popular interpretation, I believe, takes unwarranted liberties with the text; is blind to related biblical evidence; discounts classical scholarship; and ignores a wealth of documentation regarding the widely held and well publicized theories of ancient “science.”

[This message has been edited by canonyz (edited 01-24-2001).]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Percy, posted 01-01-2001 12:18 PM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by canonyz, posted 01-24-2001 12:00 PM canonyz has responded

canonyz
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 24 (102)
01-24-2001 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by canonyz
01-24-2001 10:57 AM


EX-NIHILO CREATION?

It is often said that the first act of creativity was the appearance of light. Indeed the opening statement of Genesis (1:2) has creation beginning in a dark watery place. This is virtually identical with the cosmogony of the Sumerians; a cosmogony wholly accepted by the entire ancient Middle East, including Akkadia, Assyria, and Babylonia. The New Testament writer, Saint Peter (2 Peter 3:5), confirms this suggestion with a statement commonly translated:

"heavens...and an earth formed out of water..." Revised Standard Version.

"God...used the waters to form the earth..." Living Bible.

"...earth was formed...out of water..." Jerusalem Bible.

The Egyptians said that the god Atum "came into being of himself" among the primeval waters and created air and moisture which created earth and sky. This does not, of course, address where the water came from. What it does show is that ancient "science" held water as the primeval element from which all else was made. This idea was accepted by some Greek philosophers including Thales of Miletus (circa 600 BC).

Today we think of the primeval element as hydrogen.

Which is it, my creationist friends? And furthermore, where is the scriptural suggestion that the universe was created from "nothing."?

------------------
cano


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by canonyz, posted 01-24-2001 10:57 AM canonyz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by canonyz, posted 01-28-2001 12:14 PM canonyz has not yet responded
 Message 8 by Jet, posted 02-21-2002 7:27 PM canonyz has not yet responded

canonyz
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 24 (122)
01-28-2001 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by canonyz
01-24-2001 12:00 PM


THE CREATION OF DAYLIGHT

The first act of creativity, according to Genesis 1:3, is the creation of light.
"God said, 'Let there be light'; and there was light." (RSV)
This occurs three days before God said, "Let there be lights..." vs 14 (i.e. sun, moon and stars)

God separates the light from the darkness and calls the light: Day. This is Day Light. Could it be stated more clearly? Yet modern creationists speculate that it is actually Sunlight. In so doing they reveal that they are unaware of the ancient cosmology represented here. In fact, there was once considerable debate on the nature of daylight. Many saw it as a separate reality, a phenomenon apart from sunlight.

One religious cult of Sumeria (circa 2000 BC) proposed that it was the goddess Inanna (planet Venus) which ushered daylight into the sky. Ancient Roman mythology credited Lucifer (planet Venus) with this task. Indeed the word itself means Bearer of Light. Venus, once thought to be a different "star," was credited with ushering daylight from the sky after the sun "went down." The Greeks, recognizing that both phenomena (morning and evening stars) were one and the same, called the "star" Phosphoros (light bearer), aka "the bright morning star" (ho aster lampros proinos).

In view of the animosity which Judaism often displayed toward sun worship, it should not surprise us that The Light, associated with God Himself, was never, biblically, identified with the sun.

By 600 BC, Babylonian "scientists" had offered convincing proof that daylight is a result of scattered sunlight in the atmosphere. The Book of Genesis, compiled sometime later, chose to ignore this bit of "science" in favor of the older, traditional, view that the light of day is the light of God's presence. In that opinion, daylight is entirely unrelated to the sun-god of Babylon.

God separates the Light from the darkness and calls the darkness Night. "And there was evening and there was morning, one day." vss. 4,5 (RSV)

This definition of the time period, "one day," precludes the modern interpretation of the Hebrew term "YOM" to be an epoch of undermined length. Creationists attempt to apply this definition to the creation story alone, but allow it to mean what it says elsewhere in scripture.

In fact, the formula: There was evening and there was morning, X day; is repeated for each of the six days of creation. Apart from a desire to align the Bible with modern cosmogony, there is no reason to doubt that the narrative means exactly what it says.

It seems to me that the question is not so much, What does the Bible say?; but rather, Why does the Bible say it?
A study of the evolution of science provides numerous clues in answer to this question.

------------------
cano


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by canonyz, posted 01-24-2001 12:00 PM canonyz has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 19426
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 5 of 24 (124)
01-30-2001 1:15 PM


This is a reply to Yahoo message 6728.

I think in general there are three unique views about the Genesis creation account:

  1. It was written by men and represents an ancient creation myth that should not be construed as informed or knowledgable. The correspondences between Genesis and reality exist only at a superficial level.

  2. It is the revealed word of God, but is expressed at a level that man of 3000 years ago would understand.

  3. It is the revealed word of God and is the literal and true account of Creation.

It would be great to see a debate between views 2 and 3.

--Percy


Percy
Member
Posts: 19426
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 6 of 24 (125)
01-30-2001 8:57 PM


This is a reply to Yahoo message 6732 from WastingMy.

Wasting: I read an interesting article in Sci Am that hypothesized that life as we know it stemmed from a colony, not a single bacterium. The different individuals in the colony mutated in differnet ways resulting in the different kingdoms. I found it a little far fetched, but interesting nonetheless.

This sounds a little like the article Uprooting the Tree of Life by W. Ford Doolittle that appeared in the February, 2000, issue of SciAm. Is that the right one? If so, then I think it was saying something a little different. It postulated a common ancestral community of primitive cells that through widespread gene sharing gave rise to the three major divisions of primitive life: Bacteria, Archaea and Eukaryotes, thereby explaining why modern DNA sleuthing reveals more commonality among them than would be expected had their evolution been linear through single individuals. Does this sound like the same article to you? Anyway, here's a picture from the article (don't try this at Yahoo - click to enlarge):

--Percy


Percy
Member
Posts: 19426
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 7 of 24 (187)
03-01-2001 1:36 PM


quote:
Canonyz: Which reminds me, When are you going to explain about the firmament? I say it is a hypothetical structure to hold up the sky. You have said nothing. If you do not know what the Bible says, isn't it rather hazardous to defend what you think it says?

quote:
WastingMy in Yahoo Message 7469: I don't know about holding up the sky...

In Gen 1:6, firmament seems to be something that separates the "waters from the waters". The firmament is a separator of some sort.

Gen 1:8, God calls the firmament "Heaven". Is this firmament still a support? Seems like Heaven and firmament are the same thing now.

So we have two possible definitions, we'll weigh the evidence found in Gen 1:14, 1:15, 1:17, 1:20, which seem to indicate that firmament is some structure of Heaven, a figurative "support" of some type.

Psa 19:1 "...The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork." Firmament and Heaven definitely go hand in hand.

My conclusion: Firmament is a structure of Heaven that "supports" Heaven. In other words, it separates it from the physical world.


Whether or not one believes that Genesis was written by Moses and the Psalms by David, almost everyone agrees they have different authors. I'm not sure one can rely on the Psalms to shed much light on word usage in Genesis.

My own interpretation is that the Genesis 1:6-8 makes it very clear that the firmament is Heaven. What could me more clear than, "And God called the firmament Heaven."

As to why it is described as separating the waters from the waters, the best explanation I've seen was in a message posted at the Yahoo board some time ago, possibly by Canonyz. Water was seen as coming from two sources. One was from on the ground and underneath the ground, as water could be gained from ponds and rivers and so forth, and by digging into the ground as when digging a well. The other was from above in the form of rain. The firmament separated the water below (on and in the ground) from the water above (that falls as rain).

--Percy


Jet
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 24 (5255)
02-21-2002 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by canonyz
01-24-2001 12:00 PM


Not having been involved in this thread until now, and having no real desire to get further involved without reading further, I thought I would offer this observation on the question of "Ex Nihilo" creation. There are several verses that clearly reveal the "Ex Nihilo" idea of creation, John 1:3. The Greek word translated "made" is "Ginomai(ghin'-om-ahee)" and means "cause to be", "to become", "come into being", and while some may choose to argue that this can also mean to create or make from something already existing, it is an inaccurate definition of the term and will not fit in with the entire context of the preceding and following verses.
"Bara'(baw-raw') and "Asah(aw-saw')" are two words from Genesis that are used in describing the act of creation. One carries the clear distinction of making something from nothing, while the other carries the clear distinction of making something from something already having been created. There is no doubt that scripture clearly states the doctrine of Ex Nihilo is a legitimate doctrine. However, The Bible is not a book designed to have the answers to every possible question that may arise in the mind of man. It is a book about the desired interaction between a Creator and His creation, with man as a primary focal point of that revelation. It was never meant to be construed as a science book, even though it contains scientific information that was available only through divine inspiritation and some of those scientific facts have only recently, (the past few hundred years), been able to be verified through scientific means. Science textbooks can reveal things of a spiritual nature, though they are not specifically designed to do so. The Bible can reveal things of a scientific nature, but it is not designed to be a revelation of all scientific thought and theory. They both serve a proper function if they are not stretched beyond their design or intent. Science and Religion were never meant to dovetail. Any attempts to do so will undoubtedly fail. This does not mean religion has no place in the study and exploration of science or that science has no place in the study and exploration of religion.On the contrary, science and religion can compliment each other if approached from the proper perspectives of both fields.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by canonyz, posted 01-24-2001 12:00 PM canonyz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by toff, posted 02-26-2002 6:49 AM Jet has responded
 Message 10 by Mister Pamboli, posted 02-26-2002 11:41 AM Jet has responded
 Message 11 by doctrbill, posted 02-26-2002 9:08 PM Jet has responded

toff
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 24 (5520)
02-26-2002 6:49 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Jet
02-21-2002 7:27 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Jet:
It was never meant to be construed as a science book, even though it contains scientific information that was available only through divine inspiritation and some of those scientific facts have only recently, (the past few hundred years), been able to be verified through scientific means...The Bible can reveal things of a scientific nature

Can you reveal some scientific information contained in the bible that was available 'only through divine inspiration' and has only been recently verified through scientific means? Can you reveal ANYthing of a scientific nature the bible has revealed? I have read it several times and found nothing that remotely fits this description.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Jet, posted 02-21-2002 7:27 PM Jet has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Jet, posted 05-28-2002 5:15 PM toff has not yet responded

Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 5994 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 10 of 24 (5547)
02-26-2002 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Jet
02-21-2002 7:27 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Jet:
There are several verses that clearly reveal the "Ex Nihilo" idea of creation, John 1:3. The Greek word translated "made" is "Ginomai(ghin'-om-ahee)" and means "cause to be", "to become", "come into being", and while some may choose to argue that this can also mean to create or make from something already existing, it is an inaccurate definition of the term and will not fit in with the entire context of the preceding and following verses.

I’m not going to argue too much with ginomai here except to say that the etymology is a bit circular and that this kind of contextualization of meaning can be misleading. There is no real evidence that ginomai has a special meaning of “creating from nothing” or “coming into being from nothing” – it has a wide range of meaning around “becoming” For example, Paul uses it in Romans 7:3 “So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man,” Can you guess which of the English words translates ginomai? “Married” Ginomai is a very flexible word with a wide range of meanings.

There is no need to try to narrow it down to something very specific to suit your purpose. The sentences “The cook took some ingredients and created a meal” and “God created the world” don’t have different “meanings” of create – any special meaning in the second sentence comes from your presumptions of what God did to create the world. Similarly, if I say “Kruschev banged the table with his shoe”, the word “bang” doesn’t acquire a new meaning of “to hit with a shoe.” The first chapter of John elaborates a philosophy of creation which describes what he intends by “ginomai” – but that doesn’t mean the “dictionary definition” changes. It’s just words in context.

Please don’t get me wrong – I love the gospel of John dearly, the opening verses are among the most beautiful words ever written. But we don’t need to shape them to our own ends.

[QUOTE][b]"Bara'(baw-raw') and "Asah(aw-saw')" are two words from Genesis that are used in describing the act of creation. One carries the clear distinction of making something from nothing, while the other carries the clear distinction of making something from something already having been created. [/QUOTE]

[/b]

You’ll be interested in this … here is a creationist view that this distinction is wrong …
http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/bibbul/2001/bb-01-64.htm

I hope I make my point that one need not look for special meanings of words that legitimize a viewpoint when understanding the Bible. I think this comes from a fundamentalist view that the word of God must somehow be precise and inerrant in a way that requires its vocabulary to perfectly express the meaning intended: one ends up taking a position of “if this meaning renders the Bible perfectly accurate then this must be the real meaning of the word”, even if that requires a usage totally unique in the annals of ancient literature. You haven’t gone nearly that far, but do you see the danger?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Jet, posted 02-21-2002 7:27 PM Jet has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Jet, posted 06-10-2002 7:26 AM Mister Pamboli has not yet responded

doctrbill
Member (Idle past 1181 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 11 of 24 (5611)
02-26-2002 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Jet
02-21-2002 7:27 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Jet:
There is no doubt that scripture clearly states the doctrine of Ex Nihilo is a legitimate doctrine.

Where is it the scripture "clearly states" that the doctrine of ex nihilo creation is "legitimate"? (chapter and verse please)

You have been shown where it clearly states otherwise.

Were humans spoken into existence (ex nihilo) by command of God on the sixth day? Or was the man made from mud and the woman made later from a piece of the man?

--------------
db


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Jet, posted 02-21-2002 7:27 PM Jet has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Peter, posted 03-04-2002 8:59 AM doctrbill has responded
 Message 24 by Jet, posted 06-16-2002 10:29 PM doctrbill has not yet responded

Peter
Member (Idle past 2340 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 12 of 24 (6107)
03-04-2002 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by doctrbill
02-26-2002 9:08 PM


quote:
Originally posted by doctrbill:
Where is it the scripture "clearly states" that the doctrine of ex nihilo creation is "legitimate"? (chapter and verse please)

You have been shown where it clearly states otherwise.

Were humans spoken into existence (ex nihilo) by command of God on the sixth day? Or was the man made from mud and the woman made later from a piece of the man?

--------------
db


I have my own (minority of one) interpretation of Genesis ch 1 & 2
in regards humans.

God creates a whole bunch of humans on day six.

At some unspecified date after that, he creates Eden, Adam, and
subsequently Eve.

This would get rid of objections to Cains wife, and completely
invalidate the 6000 year old earth calculation in one.

It would probably irritate just about everyone


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by doctrbill, posted 02-26-2002 9:08 PM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by doctrbill, posted 03-08-2002 8:36 AM Peter has not yet responded
 Message 16 by John Paul, posted 05-29-2002 3:07 PM Peter has not yet responded

doctrbill
Member (Idle past 1181 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 13 of 24 (6306)
03-08-2002 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Peter
03-04-2002 8:59 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Peter:
I have my own (minority of one) interpretation of Genesis ch 1 & 2
in regards humans.

God creates a whole bunch of humans on day six.

At some unspecified date after that, he creates Eden, Adam, and
subsequently Eve.

This would get rid of objections to Cains wife, and completely
invalidate the 6000 year old earth calculation in one.

It would probably irritate just about everyone


It probably would!

-------
db


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Peter, posted 03-04-2002 8:59 AM Peter has not yet responded

Jet
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 24 (10506)
05-28-2002 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by toff
02-26-2002 6:49 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by toff:
[b]
quote:
Originally posted by Jet:
It was never meant to be construed as a science book, even though it contains scientific information that was available only through divine inspiritation and some of those scientific facts have only recently, (the past few hundred years), been able to be verified through scientific means...The Bible can reveal things of a scientific nature.

************************************************************

Can you reveal some scientific information contained in the bible that was available 'only through divine inspiration' and has only been recently verified through scientific means? Can you reveal ANYthing of a scientific nature the bible has revealed? I have read it several times and found nothing that remotely fits this description.


Consider the following passage from the book of Job:

"Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades? Can you loose the chords of Orion?" Job 38:31

http://www.stilez.freeserve.co.uk/apol/int3.html

Shalom

Jet

------------------
"KNOWLEDGE IS POWER! FEED YOUR BRAIN!"

Jet

"For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of his reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a small band of theologians, who have been sitting there for centuries."

Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by toff, posted 02-26-2002 6:49 AM toff has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Percy, posted 05-28-2002 6:20 PM Jet has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 19426
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 15 of 24 (10510)
05-28-2002 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Jet
05-28-2002 5:15 PM


Already answered in another thread, please see http://207.36.64.70/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000002-12.html#168.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Jet, posted 05-28-2002 5:15 PM Jet has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020