|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Genesis 1:1-5 — Day One | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
So why do they have to be adjusted? Clocks are adjusted because we humans like to keep them synchronized with natural processes that do not run at constant speed. It's entirely that simple.
Seems to me like the atomic clock is adjusted to reality. The real time that Earth revolves on it axis. You yourself have already noted that the earth's rotation is slowing down. That acknowledgement is an admission that the earth rotation cannot be keeping "real" time. We have leap years simply because the year is not an exact a multiple of the either a 24 hour period, or the mean solar day. None of that has anything to do with adjusting non-reality to reality. Where do you get your notion that the earth's known to be non-uniform rotation is an indicator of real time? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
Hi No,
NoNukes writes: We have leap years simply because the year is not an exact a multiple of the either a 24 hour period, or the mean solar day. None of that has anything to do with adjusting non-reality to reality. quote:I've Heard That The Earth's Rotation Is Slowing. How Long Until Days Last 25 Hours? If the average reduction in the Earth's rotation is between 15 millionths and 25 millionths of a second every year. Why is a leap second added on average of every 1 1/2 years? Using the 25 millionth of a second reduction it wouldn't it take 40,000 years to require a leap second? God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
Why is a leap second added on average of every 1 1/2 years? The reduction in the earth's rotational speed is not the reason for adding the leap second (or at least not the primary reason). The real issue is that the definition of the second is not exactly the same as one mean solar day divided by 86400. The mean solar day is actually about 86400.002 seconds long based on the current definition of a second. So independent of the fact that the mean solar day is lengthening at a comparatively small rate, the 0.002 sec between 24 hours based on the definition of a second, and the mean solar day piles up to be about 0.9 seconds in something like a year and a half. At that point a leap second is added. The rate at which the difference accumulates is increasing by that 15-25 millions of a second each year, but as you've pointed out, that is a significantly smaller effect. The confusion between the two effects was the basis for a silly PRATT that predicted that the earth could not be billions of years old because it would have stopped rotating by now based on the rate at which leap seconds were being added. But as discussed above, the leap second is not caused by the lengthening of the solar day. We can find the history of the definition of a second, and some of the factors affecting the length of the solar day in the wikipedia article linked to below. Leap second - WikipediaUnder a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
My reasons for doing so is that there are 8 generations of people mentioned prior to the person known as Seth being born. Yet he was said to be born when his father was 120 years old. You do the math. Are you discounting the last verse of chapter 4 as being inaccurate? I don't understand the reasons you give for not including that last verse as part of Genesis.
The third reason is that the people in Genesis 2:4 through 4:24 have no ages attached to any of them. In fact there is only 2 deaths recorded of any of these people. I don't understand any of your reasons, but this one seems totally irrelevant.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Actually, unless my memory fails me I leave 2 verses of chapter 4 out as I do not agree with the division into chapters made by Stephen Langton, an Archbishop of Canterbury. Is that you admitting the KJV is erroneous?
My reasons for doing so is that there are 8 generations of people mentioned prior to the person known as Seth being born. Yet he was said to be born when his father was 120 years old. You do the math. The second reason is that the book of the generations recorded in chapter 5 of the man created in Genesis 1:27 does not include any of the people in Genesis chapter 2:4 through 4:24. The third reason is that the people in Genesis 2:4 through 4:24 have no ages attached to any of them. In fact there is only 2 deaths recorded of any of these people. But your reasoning stems from maintaining your original position, which makes it circular, and thus illogical.
As I have stated to you several times if you would like to discuss this further, start a thread and make your arguments why you hold the position you hold. We're in a thread right now. I hold my position in an effort to maintain the honest truth of the matter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Are you discounting the last verse of chapter 4 as being inaccurate? I don't understand the reasons you give for not including that last verse as part of Genesis. ICANT, iirc, hold the chronological order of Genesis to be this: Gen 1:1 = the day god created the heavens and earth. Within that one day, you have Gen 2:4, which happens during the day god created the earth, through the end of Gen 4 all happening within Gen 1:1. Then, you have Gen 5 and forward happening just before Gen 1:2, with The Flud resulting in the formless void that is described in that verse. Its a type of Gap Theory -- look it up on wiki "Adam" can mean just "mankind" rather than an individual person. And there's the part about stuff happening "in the day" god created the earth. The probelm is, that at the end of Gen 4, those last two verses, Adam gives birth to Seth who gives birth to Enoch. And at the begining of Gen 5, we have Adam giving birth to Seth who gives birth to Enoch. But according to his timeline, those are two unrelated groups of people because those in Gen 5 all die off before the earth becomes formless and void because of the flood as recorded in Gen 1:2. Then there's a whole new group of mankind. ICANT writes this off as a coincidence: i.e. there were enough people with those names that they don't have to referring to the exact same people. Its pretty much the nail in the coffin of his whole explanation, so now he just doesn't include those last two versus as being a part of Chapter 4. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
ICANT writes: God did say He עשה which was translated made in the KJV but the verb is in the niphal stem which when it is would mean "to be observed". hi there ICANT. still pretending you know stuff about biblical hebrew, huh?
quote: יַּעַשׂ looks qal imperfect to me. here's what a niphal imperfect would look like, יֵעָשֶׂה as in:
quote: note the different niqud: ee and ah, (thus niphal). niphal also generally has a nun prefix (thus the niphal name), and is basically just passive voice. but i'd invite you to show any reason why you think עשה should be translated "observe" in any other verse. what i think you did is cracked open blueletterbible, and read this:
quote: what that's based on is anyone's guess, considering it's not found translated that way in the actual concordance section:
quote: but hey, maybe it's in the "miscellaneous" ones. also note that the author uses a different word, ראה, when he describes god observing something:
quote: Nowhere does it say God ברא (created) the lights, sun, or moon. while this is technically correct, i'm forced to wonder why you think this is a valid dichotomy. note that these verse use all three relevant terms as synonyms:
quote: quote: quote: quote: Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined:
|
catholic scientist writes: And there's the part about stuff happening "in the day" god created the earth. this is just poor understanding hebrew idioms and grammar. i've had this discussion with ICANT before. he refuses to learn. gen 1:1 is a subordinate clause. it says,
quote: what it does not say is that this all happened at some arbitrary beginning of time. if it had meant to say that, it would have said,
quote: with an abstract, "at first". see rashi for confirmation:
quote: further, "in the day of" as in genesis 2:4:
quote: is an idiom. note that these two verses, and genesis 5:1:
quote: all have the same structure: complex preposition ("in the day of" and "in the beginning of") followed by an infinitive verb ("creating", "making" and "creating", though the first bara as the wrong vowel points, as above) followed by the subject ("god"), and a predicate. following that predicate is the independent clause, which describes the actual actions that take place during the timeframe described in the subordinate clause. so, "in the day of god making adam, he made him in god's image." did that happen over the course of the whole day, or at some arbitrary point during the day, or right when god made adam? or, "in the day of god making earth and heaven, no shrub of the field was yet in the earth." was there no shrub for that whole day, or just when god made the earth? it turn out that "when" is actually a great translation for this complex preposition. it's all that it actually means. and in this case, the "when" refers to the general creation: when god made everything. basically, the whole of genesis 1, though that chapter had not yet been written when genesis 2 and 3 were composed.
"Adam" can mean just "mankind" rather than an individual person. and it almost certainly does. in the example i posted above, genesis 5:1,2, it calls adam "him" and uses singular in verse 1, and "them" (male and female) in verse 2. it's almost certainly referring back to the story of genesis 2-4. a similar thing happens in genesis 1:27, singular and then plural.
The probelm is, that at the end of Gen 4, those last two verses, Adam gives birth to Seth who gives birth to Enoch. And at the begining of Gen 5, we have Adam giving birth to Seth who gives birth to Enoch. But according to his timeline, those are two unrelated groups of people because those in Gen 5 all die off before the earth becomes formless and void because of the flood as recorded in Gen 1:2. Then there's a whole new group of mankind. ICANT writes this off as a coincidence: i.e. there were enough people with those names that they don't have to referring to the exact same people. yup, and the whole thing is formed on an overly literal reading, devoid of knowledge about idioms and grammar, and based too heavily on a preconception that doesn't really hold up to examination. note that the plant thing is another contradiction: if you read it all as one literal day, god then goes on to, you know, plant a garden and call it "eden". all in that same poorly conceived "day". the story itself contradicts that reading. Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
ICANT writes: Actually, unless my memory fails me I leave 2 verses of chapter 4 out as I do not agree with the division into chapters made by Stephen Langton, an Archbishop of Canterbury. nor do i!
quote: but do you suppose that the author of genesis just randomly interjected "this is the book of the generations of adam" without, you know, intending for it begin a new section? toledot are commonly recognized as division markers by... every biblical scholar ever? now, if you'd lopped off everything from, say, 4:16 or 4:17 (or somewhere in there) to 4:26, i might understand. that's suddenly concerned with genealogy, and doesn't do as good a job of it as chapter 5 does, as you note. but it's pretty clear that is the interjection, and that the "adam" in verse 25 is the same "adam" in verse 1. and "adam" to "enosh" is a pretty important step symbolically, since those are the two words for "man".
My reasons for doing so is that there are 8 generations of people mentioned prior to the person known as Seth being born. Yet he was said to be born when his father was 120 years old. You do the math. sure. but only if you do the math on genesis 10. why to cham and yafeth have a bunch of kids and grandkids (and why do their kids have a bunch of kids and grandkids) before shem? yet shem has his first child at only 100?
The second reason is that the book of the generations recorded in chapter 5 of the man created in Genesis 1:27 does not include any of the people in Genesis chapter 2:4 through 4:24. sure it does: adam. your problem is that you think there's more than one. this is, of course, begging the question. you can't demonstrate something with evidence based on the assumption of what you set out to demonstrate. ruling out genesis 4:25 and 26 is further question begging: you've rigged it. genesis 5 mentions seth and enosh. you think these are a different seth and a different enosh? or do you just pretend those two verse don't exist?
The third reason is that the people in Genesis 2:4 through 4:24 have no ages attached to any of them. nor do the people in genesis 10.
In fact there is only 2 deaths recorded of any of these people. ditto for genesis 10. these are just people that the authors of the genealogies were unconcerned with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
kbertsche writes: One minor quibble with the OP: it wasn't the light on Day 1 which was created to "demarcate time", it was the light bearers (sun, moon, stars) on Day 4 which were created to do so, "to indicate seasons and days and years" (v.14). yes, and no. the days are still clearly defined as periods of darkness, followed by periods of light, meant to be the origin of the jewish daily calendar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
jar writes: Sine the story uses the plural 'waters' hey jar. "water" singular is the correct translation, as well as "heaven" singular, and "god" singular. and all for the same reasons, even though they all end with a typically plural suffix: you can't count them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
ICANT writes: So the heavens and the Earth began to exist in Genesis 1:1 heaven began to exist in verses 6-8, and earth began to exist in verses 9-10. do you honestly think they existed before god made them, and before god named them, with their current appearances and current names? i understand that you think god made his creation twice, but they wouldn't need to be named again the second time.
That was the first city built and it was built during the day the Lord God created the heavens and the Earth as it is part of the history of that day. this is a busy day! people are being born, and dying, and having grandkids, and building cities!
Isaiah said God did not create the mess found in Genesis 1:2. isaiah said that god had purpose to his creation. and, in any case, if you'd like to read super-literally, genesis 1:1 doesn't say that god created waste, either. just that it was waste when he began creating. the bible doesn't describe creation as ex-nihilo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Evangelical Humanists Junior Member (Idle past 4283 days) Posts: 14 Joined: |
Why was plants and trees made on Day 3? Yet according to Genesis the Sun was not created until Day 4? How do you separate light and dark which it does twice? Plants and trees cannot produce photosynthesis without sunlight. Basically creation theory was shot down the minute is was discovered that the earth was not the center of the universe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Evangelical Humanists Junior Member (Idle past 4283 days) Posts: 14 Joined: |
the bible doesn't describe creation as ex-nihilo. It's implied in Hebrews 11:3 which contradicts Genesis 1:1.......the Biblical creation story is an ex-nihilo creation event. In Genesis 1:1 he creates heaven and earth so this indicates that before there was nothing. If earth did not exist prior to that then why would the writer say expressly that he created heaven and earth? The Bible is loaded with these ex-nihilo statements: Creation Ex Nihilo - Reasons to Believe
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined:
|
Evangelical Humanists writes: It's implied in Hebrews 11:3 which contradicts Genesis 1:1....... i believe you're reading that wrong. hebrews 11:3 says:
quote: making things (that appear) out of other things (that do not appear) is not making things out of nothing. in any case, it does contradict genesis 1 in that the raw materials are still present: the water that formed the seas is the same water from which heaven and earth were made. the authors of the new testament had a decidedly different ideology from the authors of the old testament, and appeared to only be reading the old testament in translation. it's quite easy to see how they could get different ideas.
In Genesis 1:1 he creates heaven and earth so this indicates that before there was nothing. If earth did not exist prior to that then why would the writer say expressly that he created heaven and earth? perhaps you had better scroll up a bit, and read this comment. my reply above was to ICANT, who knows this yet refuses to listen, as he think he knows the language better than rashi, even though he can't even keep his alef-bet straight. his problem -- the reason for much of this thread's divergence -- is that he thinks that genesis 1:1 describes a creation event, even though that creation event is obviously described in the chapter that proceeds from that verse. in that description, the heaven and the earth are both made from materials that already exist: water. ICANT sees this as indicating two separate creation events, but that's demonstrably wrong for grammatical reasons. but even if the verse were an independent clause (it's not), it would still be quite obviously a preface or introduction to story itself, which provides the details. and in those details, creation is not ex-nihilo.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024