|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 651 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 ? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
It is my personal theory that 'round things' were created on day four. Like this? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1370 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
granpa writes: It is my personal theory that 'round things' were created on day four. but it doesn't say "round things". it says,
quote: which says nothing about shape, only that they provide light. notice that מְאֹרֹת has the same root as אוֹר in verse 3, "light". further,
whatever these round things were they came between the earliest living things (tree-like things) of day 3 and the living nephesh's (oxygen breathers) of day five how does something created on day four become something on day three?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
granpa Member (Idle past 2368 days) Posts: 128 Joined: |
You are right, it doesnt say that in the hebrew, but why assume that the story was originally told in hebrew. If it really is the story of genesis then it goes all the way back to Adam. There is no reason to assume that Adam spoke hebrew. Just because 'sun' and 'moon' and 'stars' dont have that association in hebrew doesnt mean that they didnt in the original language.
Its called 'extrapolating' not 'making stuff up'. I have no idea what you are trying to say about 3rd day. What becomes what? Edited by granpa, : No reason given. Edited by granpa, : No reason given. Edited by granpa, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1370 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined:
|
granpa writes: It doesnt say that in the hebrew i quoted the hebrew. so.... yes it does.
but why assume that the story was originally told in hebrew. because what we have is hebrew, and otherwise, you're just making shit up.
I have no idea what you are trying to say about 3rd day. obviously.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
i quoted the hebrew. so.... yes it does. You misunderstand him. You quoted the Hebrew and wrote that it "says nothing about shape". He was agreeing with you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13035 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.0 |
Hi Buz,
The best way for you to contribute to this thread is to play the role of the traditional creationist who believes the entire universe was created in six days around six or seven thousand years ago.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Buzsaw writes:
The BB theory, upon which both are based has some questionable unknown aspects like no existing area in which to have happened, no known before the event, no existing outside of in which to have expanded and no existing time in which to have happened. Why is "no existing area in which to have happened" an issue? Why is "no known before the event" an issue? Why is "no existing time in which to have happened" an issue? Why is "no existing outside of in which to have expanded" an issue? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
Please provide the definitions you are using for hypothesis and theory.
In order to understand what you are trying to say I need to know what definition of the word you are using. I claimed you are equivocating and you denied it. As you seem to be using definitions other than the definitions used scientifically, it seems, that yes, you are equivocating. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
granpa writes: You are right, it doesnt say that in the hebrew, but why assume that the story was originally told in hebrew. If it really is the story of genesis then it goes all the way back to Adam. I don't think anyone believes that the creation story was handed down from Adam's day. Adam would not have seen most of it.
granpa writes: Its called 'extrapolating' not 'making stuff up'. Extrapolating generally is making things up. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4216 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
The story was first written in Hebrew, but whatever language it was first told is unknown, It could have been Sumerian, Akkadian, Babylonian, if brought to Canaan by Abraham, or it could have been a Canaanite story or brought there by some other peoples. It could be a compilation of many stories from many sources, altered, refined, or had other stories injected to the original.
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 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
bluescat48 writes: The story was first written in Hebrew, but whatever language it was first told is unknown, It could have been Sumerian, Akkadian, Babylonian, if brought to Canaan by Abraham, or it could have been a Canaanite story or brought there by some other peoples. It could be a compilation of many stories from many sources, altered, refined, or had other stories injected to the original. That would depend on which chapters of Genesis you were talking about. The story in Genesis 1 would almost certainly have been written in Hebrew and certainly don't go 'back to Adam' as it was most likely created around the middle of the 600s BCE. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4216 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
I am not denying they were written in Hebrew, just that the word of mouth stories themselves probably weren't, since they would predate the Hebrew language, and most likely came from various sources.
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 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
It's very unlikely that Genesis 1 is an oral tradition tale. It's pretty clearly crafted as a later, much later, teaching.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1370 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
bluescat48 writes: I am not denying they were written in Hebrew, just that the word of mouth stories themselves probably weren't, since they would predate the Hebrew language, and most likely came from various sources. as jar hinted at, genesis 1 is almost certainly not an oral tradition. genesis 2/3, perhaps. but genesis 1, no. it's an extremely late story, one of the last added to the torah, and shows extremely strong babylonian influence. the story in that form does not antedate the hebrew language. though, of course, the stories it is based on might -- you just would not recognize them as the story of genesis 1.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4216 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
of course, the stories it is based on might That is what I was implying. 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 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024