|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 652 days) Posts: 13 From: Manchester, England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: If our sun is second or third generation, does this not conflict with Genesis ? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Taq writes:
What NoNukes is trying to say is that stars the size of Sol and smaller (that are still stars and not gas giants) have very long lifespans compared to larger stars. 30 million years is a drop in the bucket for a 10 billion year lifespan (the expected overall lifespan of our Sun before it expands into a red giant). Exactly so. The theoretical minimum mass for a main sequence star is are about 7-8% of the mass of the sun. The smallest known star is about 12% of the mass of the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Buzsaw writes:
The record tells us that one of the primary functions of the sun was to initiate the 24 hr day. Clearly implicated is that before day five, we have no knowledge as to how long the first four days were. That's right. We have no knowledge at all as to the length of those days. In fact there is no Biblical evidence that days 1-3 were not about 24 hours long or even shorter. There is no indication in the Bible that evening and morning became different lengths after the sun, moon, and stars were created. You can believe what you want, for whatever reasons you want. But your claim "The record tells us that one of the primary functions of the sun was to initiate the 24 hr day," is not Biblical. It's your own supposition.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
NoNukes writes: Buzsaw writes:
The record tells us that one of the primary functions of the sun was to initiate the 24 hr day. Clearly implicated is that before day five, we have no knowledge as to how long the first four days were. That's right. We have no knowledge at all as to the length of those days. In fact there is no Biblical evidence that days 1-3 were not about 24 hours long or even shorter. There is no indication in the Bible that evening and morning became different lengths after the sun, moon, and stars were created. You can believe what you want, for whatever reasons you want. But your claim "The record tells us that one of the primary functions of the sun was to initiate the 24 hr day," is not Biblical. It's your own supposition. Well, actually there is evidence that the first days were the same as the latter days; exactly the same phraseology is used between each day.
quote: To pretend they are anything other than 24 hour days is to add to the story, the hubris of rewriting the Bible. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
NoNukes writes: There is no indication in the Bible that evening and morning became different lengths after the sun, moon, and stars were created. Say what? No indication whatsoever? None? What then are the implications of verse fourteen?
quote: The implication is that one of the purposes of the sun being created on day four was to determine the days years and seasons for the planet. No? BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
NoNukes writes: There is no indication in the Bible that evening and morning became different lengths after the sun, moon, and stars were created. Say what? No indication whatsoever? None? What then are the implications of verse fourteen?
quote: The implication is that one of the purposes of the sun being created on day four was to determine the days years and seasons for the planet. No? For those of us who missed it, would you be kind enough to point out the part of that verse that mentions a change in the length of days? Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Jon writes: NoNukes writes: There is no indication in the Bible that evening and morning became different lengths after the sun, moon, and stars were created. Say what? No indication whatsoever? None? What then are the implications of verse fourteen?
quote: The implication is that one of the purposes of the sun being created on day four was to determine the days years and seasons for the planet. No? For those of us who missed it, would you be kind enough to point out the part of that verse that mentions a change in the length of days? Look up and assimilate the meaning of implication. The verse implicates a determination of days, years and seasons. Pray tell, in context, what do those words imply to you, given that we, on planet earth, observe 24 hr days, etc? BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
The verse implicates a determination of days, years and seasons. Pray tell, in context, what do those words imply to you, given that we, on planet earth, observe 24 hr days, etc? Why not run us through the reasoning behind the implication? 'Cause I still don't see what you're seeing. Edited by Jon, : formatting Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
jar writes: Buzsaw writes:
The record tells us that one of the primary functions of the sun was to initiate the 24 hr day. Clearly implicated is that before day five, we have no knowledge as to how long the first four days were. Well, actually there is evidence that the first days were the same as the latter days; exactly the same phraseology is used between each day. Nonsense! Just as the usage of the term day is determined by context so with the term evening and morning.. The context of days one through four imply an undetermined length of evening and morning and the context of days five and six imply a literal day determined by the lights being created on day four. The context says emphatically that that was the purpose of the created lights on day four. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Buzsaw writes:
Say what? No indication whatsoever? None? What then are the implications of verse fourteen?
quote: The implication is that one of the purposes of the sun being created on day four was to determine the days years and seasons for the planet. No? Definitely no. I'm quite sure you are wrong. For one thing day in the verse clearly means daylight period of a day/night cycle. The stars have nothing to do with the length of the seasons or the length of a day. But we can identify the seasons by observing the stars at a particular point in time each day. Or knowing the time of year we can determine the hour by observing the stars or even the position of the sun among the stars. Genesis 1:14 reflects the truth that the stars are visible at night, are invisible during the day, form constellations and indicate the seasons and the passage of time. Surely you understand that the stars don't actually cause or regulate the passage of time. The length of a day is determined essentially by the period of rotation of the earth. Darkness and light during a day might depend on the sun, but the overall length of a day on earth does not. We can mark the length of a sidereal day by observing the position of any visible star. We can mark a solar day with the sun. Finally the length of the seasons is irrelevant for this discussion. There is no mention of the passage of seasons during days 1-7. Edited by NoNukes, : Delete signs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Buzsaw writes:
The context of days one through four imply an undetermined length of evening and morning Undetermined, meaning not even you know what the length was. If you say that undetermined means longer than 24 hours, then you aren't getting that from the Bible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
The context of days one through four imply an undetermined length of evening and morning and the context of days five and six imply a literal day determined by the lights being created on day four. The context says emphatically that that was the purpose of the created lights on day four. Instead of evading and avoiding, how about you actually provide some evidence for this claim? Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
NoNukes writes: The stars have nothing to do with the length of the seasons or the length of a day. But we can identify the seasons by observing the stars at a particular point in time each day. Or knowing the time of year we can determine the hour by observing the stars or even the position of the sun among the stars. Obviously, all bodies were not meant to fulfill the same function. Obviously, the message of the text is that one of the functions of them was to determine the days, the sun being the one fulfilling that purpose. One might say that the US government consists of three branches, the executive, the legislative and the judicial, but that does not mean all fulfill the same function. One of the functions of the government is to adjudicate. One of the functions of the heavenly lights is to determine the days etc. Savvy, or do we need to expend more time and bandwidth on these basic aspects of the context? BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13036 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Discussions about Biblical interpretations should be the reserve of the religion threads. If Buzsaw's position is that Genesis describes a cosmos in agreement with science and that there is no conflict then he's done in this thread. Anyone who would like to discuss interpretations of Genesis should propose a new thread over in Proposed New Topics.
As someone noted earlier, this thread needs a creationist participant, but it must be one who interprets Genesis as describing a cosmos where no sun could possibly be billions of years old.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Is a forum change in order here, in order that creationists may respond in kind to the topic which is as much about creationism as it is about science and Bible study?
The exchanges in the early messages between the admin topic promoter, Adminnemooseus and the topic author seem to indicate so. Most of the content of the thread (abe: including the OP) has been devoted to exchanges between the topic author and other members regarding the Genesis account.
Message 2 ...does this not negate the whole "let there be light" narrative. The fact that our sun actually formed from a supernova of a previous sun means we have already had light. As I see it, if anything, it gives creationists an out to explain how God created light 2 days (wasn't it?) before the creation of the (current) sun. That light could have been from the previous sun version. Adminnemooseus "Our own sun contains about 2 percent of these heavier elements [oxygen and carbon] because it is a second- or third- generation star, formed some five thousand million years ago out of a cloud of rotating gas containing the debris of earlier supernovas. Most of the gas in that cloud went to form the sun or got blown away, but a small amount of the heavier elements collected together to form the bodies that now orbit the sun as planets like the earth." Stephen Hawking - Brief History of TimeSorry I didn't want to just produce a post with a load of links on it, as I find those a little wearing. Sun - New World Encyclopedia I realise that to accept this the timeframe would play havoc with YEC anyway. You may be right about the Genesis narrative. I have read through it and despite reading through, I cannot find mention of light 2 days before the creation of the sun. I suppose, as with all religious texts, the interpretation can be warped to fit whatever evidence is displayed.
Message 5You may be right about the Genesis narrative. I have read through it and despite reading through, I cannot find mention of light 2 days before the creation of the sun. I suppose, as with all religious texts, the interpretation can be warped to fit whatever evidence is displayed. Creates light: quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light, and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light day, and the darkness he called night. And there was evening, and there was morningthe first day. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Creates sun and moon: quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Genesis 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth. And it was so. 16 God made two great lightsthe greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morningthe fourth day. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source I misguessed - God created light 3 days before creating the sun. Edited by Buzsaw, : shown in text BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Buzsaw writes:
Is a forum change in order here, in order that creationists may respond in kind to the topic which is as much about creationism as it is about science and Bible study? I think some amount of Biblical interpretation is necessary in this thread, but I agree with the moderator that we're debating aspects that were not relevant to the topic at hand. Quite frankly, I'm not willing to join you in yet another debate about the meaning of "yom". Savvy? That said, I don't understand the requirement that the creationist side of the debate here be limited to YEC. All that is required is an explanation of why some extra elements exist in the sun so that it appears to be second generation. Apparent age explanations will not cut it, in my opinion, because as I understand stellar evolution, our tiny sun will never fuse hydrogen/helium into the heavy elements currently found in the sun. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024