Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Problems with Genesis: A Christian Evolutionist's View
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 76 of 200 (588692)
10-27-2010 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by granpa
10-27-2010 1:45 PM


(If you click the small "reply" button at the bottom of each post instead of the "Gen Reply" button, your post will link to the one you're responding to. You can also click the "peek' button to see how quotes, etc. are done.)
granpa writes:
bacteria can give light upon the earth. google 'light emitting bacteria'.
I'll quote it for you again:
quote:
Gen 1:14-15 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
They mark the seasons, the days and the years. They're in the firmament (sky). They certainly don't sound like bacteria.
granpa writes:
from light air
from air water
from water earth
from earth life
from life cells
That makes no sense at all.

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by granpa, posted 10-27-2010 1:45 PM granpa has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by granpa, posted 10-27-2010 2:24 PM ringo has replied

  
granpa
Member (Idle past 2341 days)
Posts: 128
Joined: 10-26-2010


Message 77 of 200 (588693)
10-27-2010 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by ringo
10-27-2010 2:16 PM


actually it says 'upon' the face of the expanse of heaven
Genesis 1 Interlinear Bible
pretending not to understand something so as to avoid having to defend your position against it is the height of and indeed the very definition of 'disingenuity'.
Edited by granpa, : No reason given.
Edited by granpa, : No reason given.
Edited by granpa, : No reason given.
Edited by granpa, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by ringo, posted 10-27-2010 2:16 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by ringo, posted 10-27-2010 2:44 PM granpa has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 78 of 200 (588697)
10-27-2010 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by granpa
10-27-2010 2:24 PM


granpa writes:
actually it says 'upon' the face of the expanse of heaven
Okay, so how do you explain bacteria "upon" the sky? And once again, how are bacteria used to mark the seasons, the days and the years?

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by granpa, posted 10-27-2010 2:24 PM granpa has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by granpa, posted 10-27-2010 2:54 PM ringo has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 79 of 200 (588698)
10-27-2010 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by granpa
10-27-2010 12:00 AM


well I cant prove it but I strongly suspect that it originally said that God created 'small round things' and 'round things' and 'great round things' on the 4th day.
So spirochaetes didn't get created until some other day? Did syphilis not show up until after The Fall?
Welcome to EvC, Granpa. I hope you have fun here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by granpa, posted 10-27-2010 12:00 AM granpa has seen this message but not replied

  
granpa
Member (Idle past 2341 days)
Posts: 128
Joined: 10-26-2010


Message 80 of 200 (588700)
10-27-2010 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by ringo
10-27-2010 2:44 PM


I clearly stated that they were between cells and fish. That is certainly not bacteria and it shows that you arent listening to, nor making any effort to comprehend, anything that I say.
the 'face of the atmosphere' would obviously be where the atmosphere meets the water.
Its even conceivable (though not necessary) that they stuck their gills completely out of the water and waved them in the air. (That is considered to be one possibility of how insects evolved wings)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by ringo, posted 10-27-2010 2:44 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by ringo, posted 10-27-2010 3:04 PM granpa has replied
 Message 82 by AdminPD, posted 10-27-2010 4:13 PM granpa has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 81 of 200 (588702)
10-27-2010 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by granpa
10-27-2010 2:54 PM


granpa writes:
I clearly stated that they were between cells and fish.
You clearly stated in Message 75:
bacteria can give light upon the earth.
That's what I'm replying to. If you're talking about something "between cells and fish" that emits light, then I'll ask yet again: How do you explain them being used as signs for the seasons, days and years?
I'm making an attempt to comprehend your viewpoint by asking the question but you're not answering it.

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by granpa, posted 10-27-2010 2:54 PM granpa has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by granpa, posted 10-27-2010 4:21 PM ringo has replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 82 of 200 (588705)
10-27-2010 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by granpa
10-27-2010 2:54 PM


Welcome to EvC
Welcome granpa,
Glad you decided to add to our diversity. We have a wide variety of forums for your debating pleasure.
As members, we are guests on this board and as guests we are asked to put forth our best behavior.
Please read the Forum Guidelines carefully and understand the wishes of our host.
One thing we do stress here is to argue the position, not the person.
Please direct any questions or comments you may have concerning this post to the Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 thread.
Again, welcome and fruitful debating.
AdminPD ***
Edited by AdminPD, : Sig block

Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encylopedia Brittanica, on debate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by granpa, posted 10-27-2010 2:54 PM granpa has seen this message but not replied

  
granpa
Member (Idle past 2341 days)
Posts: 128
Joined: 10-26-2010


Message 83 of 200 (588706)
10-27-2010 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by ringo
10-27-2010 3:04 PM


ah. I see. Mea culpa. And you are right it does say 'in the expanse of shamim'.
you do raise a valid point.
While the overall structure of genesis allows us to see the general pattern (separation and evolution) and thereby guess at the original text, which is lost, unfortunately the details are obscure. Verses 14, 15, 17, & 18 are particularly mysterious.
there are 3 possibilities that I can think of offhand.
1. they werent in the original at all
2. they were in the original but were on the first day rather than the 4th (I am leaning toward this possibility)
3. they are a poor translation of some obscure words whose meaning we cant even guess at (yet).
my 'viewpoint' though should be quite clear. I gave it in its entirety in message 75

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by ringo, posted 10-27-2010 3:04 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-27-2010 4:31 PM granpa has replied
 Message 85 by ringo, posted 10-27-2010 4:40 PM granpa has replied
 Message 93 by Granny Magda, posted 10-27-2010 5:37 PM granpa has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 200 (588707)
10-27-2010 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by granpa
10-27-2010 4:21 PM


there are 3 possibilities that I can think of offhand.
1. they werent in the original at all
2. they were in the original but were on the first day rather than the 4th (I am leaning toward this possibility)
3. they are a poor translation of some obscure words whose meaning we cant even guess at (yet).
What about, simply, the Bible being wrong here?
Or is that just not a possibility?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by granpa, posted 10-27-2010 4:21 PM granpa has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by granpa, posted 10-27-2010 4:41 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 85 of 200 (588708)
10-27-2010 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by granpa
10-27-2010 4:21 PM


granpa writes:
Verses 14, 15, 17, & 18 are particularly mysterious.
Verses 14, 15, 17, & 18 are only mysterious if you deliberately leave out verse 16:
quote:
Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
It's talking about the sun, moon and stars. They divide the day from the night and they're signs for the seasons, days and years (verse14). It's pretty explicit. And they were created the day after the green plants.
granpa writes:
there are 3 possibilities that I can think of offhand.
1. they werent in the original at all
2. they were in the original but were on the first day rather than the 4th (I am leaning toward this possibility)
3. they are a poor translation of some obscure words whose meaning we cant even guess at (yet).
I mentioned a fourth possibility earlier on: the Bible is just wrong about it.

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by granpa, posted 10-27-2010 4:21 PM granpa has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by granpa, posted 10-27-2010 4:46 PM ringo has replied

  
granpa
Member (Idle past 2341 days)
Posts: 128
Joined: 10-26-2010


Message 86 of 200 (588709)
10-27-2010 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by New Cat's Eye
10-27-2010 4:31 PM


it is wrong there.
the question is why is it wrong there?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-27-2010 4:31 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Coragyps, posted 10-27-2010 4:54 PM granpa has seen this message but not replied
 Message 90 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-27-2010 5:03 PM granpa has seen this message but not replied
 Message 92 by jar, posted 10-27-2010 5:24 PM granpa has seen this message but not replied

  
granpa
Member (Idle past 2341 days)
Posts: 128
Joined: 10-26-2010


Message 87 of 200 (588710)
10-27-2010 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by ringo
10-27-2010 4:40 PM


I already explained verse 16.
It fits very well into the overall pattern (separation and evolution leading to humans) of genesis.
I have no desire to force anyone to accept my interpretation.
I merely present it as a possibility for consideration.
It is very clear that you have already made up your minds on this and thats fine.
Edited by granpa, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by ringo, posted 10-27-2010 4:40 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by ringo, posted 10-27-2010 4:53 PM granpa has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 88 of 200 (588712)
10-27-2010 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by granpa
10-27-2010 4:46 PM


granpa writes:
I already explained verse 16.
It fits very well into the overall pattern (separation and evolution leading to humans) of genesis.
But verse 16 has nothing to do with evolution leading to humans. It's clearly about lights in the heavens. Why else would they be used as signs of the seasons, days and years? I don't see where you've explained that part.

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by granpa, posted 10-27-2010 4:46 PM granpa has seen this message but not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 89 of 200 (588713)
10-27-2010 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by granpa
10-27-2010 4:41 PM


the question is why is it wrong there?
Because it was a retelling of a campfire myth, originally told by nomadic goatherders and codified a couple of millenia later by pre-scientific folks who really thought that the universe was created in a few days with a platter-shaped place for folks to live at its center. And that it was later covered up entirely by a flood that left eight survivors. And that the Sun, Moon, and stars were attached to the inside of some sort of a big-ass dome.

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by granpa, posted 10-27-2010 4:41 PM granpa has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 200 (588714)
10-27-2010 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by granpa
10-27-2010 4:41 PM


it is wrong there.
the question is why is it wrong there?
Because it was written a very long time ago, before scientific advancement.
Its a myth about creation, not a fact book.
We'd expect there to be inaccuracies.
ABE:
This is what the writers thought they were working with:
Of course they'd get parts wrong!
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by granpa, posted 10-27-2010 4:41 PM granpa has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024