Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8951 total)
42 online now:
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,940 Year: 21,976/19,786 Month: 539/1,834 Week: 39/500 Day: 39/96 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where did Earth's Iron core come from and how did the mantle become molten?
Percy
Member
Posts: 19071
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 61 of 120 (523911)
09-13-2009 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Archangel
09-13-2009 9:13 AM


Re: Please Stay On Topic
If there's a way of parsing, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth" to arrive at your and Peg's interpretation, I can't see it. How could God have created the heavens and the Earth if they already existed? How could they already exist before the beginning?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Archangel, posted 09-13-2009 9:13 AM Archangel has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Peg, posted 09-13-2009 9:43 AM Percy has responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3267 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 62 of 120 (523912)
09-13-2009 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Coragyps
09-13-2009 9:08 AM


Re: Since I'm the guy being discussed, here's my 2 cents...
Coragyps writes:

But Genesis 1:9 does have the dry land all stirred up among the waters (the waters below the firmament, now), so I don't think the land could have been much hotter than boiling. Certainly not molten.

im not sure what you mean by this

volcanos are erupting all the time under the sea and on the land and it has no bearing on the inner core or its temperature.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Coragyps, posted 09-13-2009 9:08 AM Coragyps has not yet responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3267 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 63 of 120 (523914)
09-13-2009 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Coragyps
09-13-2009 9:12 AM


Re: Please Stay On Topic
coragyps writes:

"Easily" if you don't read on to verse 16-17 where the Sun and Moon and stars were created and stck onto the firmament on Day #4.

It's your book, Peg - read it.

i have read it and it also describes what earth’s condition was just before that first “day” began: “Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep; and God’s active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters.”Genesis 1:2.

so the first verse says God created the heavens and the earth.

the second line says the earth was formless and waste, other translations say it was empty and void when God began working on it.

or IOW, It was an existing planet along with all the other planets in the universe, THEN God began to prepare it for habitation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Coragyps, posted 09-13-2009 9:12 AM Coragyps has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Coragyps, posted 09-13-2009 10:15 PM Peg has responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3267 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 64 of 120 (523917)
09-13-2009 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Percy
09-13-2009 9:21 AM


Re: Please Stay On Topic
Percy writes:

How could God have created the heavens and the Earth if they already existed? How could they already exist before the beginning?

The verses in genesis are very specific and they are refering to two different times. We know the universe had a beginning. And Vs 1 is addressing that point, that in the beginning of creation, God made the heavens and the earth. The universe as we know it.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"

the beginning of making the earth inhabitable is being spoken of in Vs2. "Now the earth was formless and waste and Gods spirit was moving to and fro over the waters"

They are two very different things.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Percy, posted 09-13-2009 9:21 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Percy, posted 09-13-2009 9:55 AM Peg has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19071
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 65 of 120 (523921)
09-13-2009 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Peg
09-13-2009 9:43 AM


Re: Please Stay On Topic
Oh, I see, you're referring to the creationist argument that there's a great span of time between verses 1 and 2. That's a pretty strained interpretation, isn't it? Isn't it really just a post facto reinterpretation of those verses in an attempt at reconciliation with the facts of modern cosmology, astronomy and geology? Can you point to anyone making such an interpretation before such information came to light during the 20th century?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Peg, posted 09-13-2009 9:43 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by ICANT, posted 09-14-2009 12:50 AM Percy has responded
 Message 70 by Peg, posted 09-14-2009 6:26 AM Percy has responded

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2454 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 66 of 120 (523962)
09-13-2009 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Peg
09-13-2009 8:51 AM


Re: Since I'm the guy being discussed, here's my 2 cents...
Does 'void and empty' convey molten to you?

Empty by definition means "1 a : containing nothing" and void means "vacant" which begs the question of where did the iron core come from?

Furthermore, as Archangel explicitly stated as in the record of this thread, he believes the Earth was "an old dead rock." How did an old dead rock become molten?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Peg, posted 09-13-2009 8:51 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Peg, posted 09-14-2009 6:49 AM obvious Child has not yet responded

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2454 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 67 of 120 (523963)
09-13-2009 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Percy
09-13-2009 4:09 AM


Re: Interpretations
Which is a key problem of many Creationists. They want to be taken seriously, thus they attempt a science angle yet their beliefs are inherently not science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Percy, posted 09-13-2009 4:09 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5414
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 6.0


Message 68 of 120 (523987)
09-13-2009 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Peg
09-13-2009 9:32 AM


Re: Please Stay On Topic
so the first verse says God created the heavens and the earth.

That being God's house and the house for people, animals, etc. The fourth day is when the sun, moon, and stars were made and stuck to the firmament. Read your book. That's what it says.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Peg, posted 09-13-2009 9:32 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Peg, posted 09-14-2009 7:11 AM Coragyps has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6269
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 69 of 120 (523993)
09-14-2009 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Percy
09-13-2009 9:55 AM


Re: old universe
Hi Percy,

Percy writes:

Can you point to anyone making such an interpretation before such information came to light during the 20th century?

From the time of Aristotle there have been those who believed the universe was eternal.

Thomas Chambers actually taught the gap theory to his church in 1804.

The Jewish Midrash had other worlds created besides this one.

The Massoretic Text puts a Rebhia at the end of Genesis 1:1. Making a disjunction between verse 1 and 2, which means there is a duration between the two.

The book of Jasher teaches ruin-recreation even though not accepted as cannon. It was written long before modern day cosmology existed.

Targum of Onkelos, the earliest of the Aramaic Versions of the Old Testament written by Hebrew Scholars. Has text that translates "and the earth was laid waste".

So yes Percy the teaching that there is a durations between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 has been held and taught for over 2000 years. Some believed it and others did not. Most would not have said anything because that is not what the Church that was in power held at that time. People died because they disagreed with the church that was in power.

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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Percy, posted 09-13-2009 9:55 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Percy, posted 09-14-2009 7:37 AM ICANT has responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3267 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 70 of 120 (524013)
09-14-2009 6:26 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Percy
09-13-2009 9:55 AM


Re: Please Stay On Topic
Percy writes:

Oh, I see, you're referring to the creationist argument that there's a great span of time between verses 1 and 2. That's a pretty strained interpretation, isn't it? Isn't it really just a post facto reinterpretation of those verses in an attempt at reconciliation with the facts of modern cosmology, astronomy and geology?

no, actually its more to do with an improved understanding of the ancient languages

modern scholars have learn a fair bit about the ancient hebrew language, information that was previously unknown until archaeology began to be discovered that shed light on it.

the word Yohm (day) was used in various ways, it could literally mean some time in the past such as 'in the day of Noah' who lived for much longer then 1 day. It can also mean several days such as 'the day of harvest' and the harvest spanned over a week in ancient isreal.

And science has also added to an improved understanding...many people who study the bible have taken on board that the earth was not made in 6 literal days and they fully accept science in this regard. The improved understanding of hebrew reinforces it and vice versa.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Percy, posted 09-13-2009 9:55 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Percy, posted 09-14-2009 7:50 AM Peg has responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3267 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 71 of 120 (524017)
09-14-2009 6:49 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by obvious Child
09-13-2009 5:06 PM


Re: Since I'm the guy being discussed, here's my 2 cents...
obvious child writes:

Does 'void and empty' convey molten to you?

no it doesnt

obvious child writes:

Empty by definition means "1 a : containing nothing" and void means "vacant" which begs the question of where did the iron core come from?

so the 'vacant' could mean vacant of life, right? It could also mean vacant of trees, or plants, or animals. If you see a vacant lot of land, there is generally nothing on it, no house for instance which is why its called a 'vacant lot'

obvious child writes:

Furthermore, as Archangel explicitly stated as in the record of this thread, he believes the Earth was "an old dead rock." How did an old dead rock become molten?

whether it was or not is a matter of opinion and speculation...the bible does not go into those sorts of details.

Personally i believe the planet was just like any other planet with its own special features...molten lava in the inner core is one of them. Perhaps archangel didnt mean it was a literal rock floating through space, but was using that image to imply that it was at one time a large lifeless mass.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by obvious Child, posted 09-13-2009 5:06 PM obvious Child has not yet responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3267 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 72 of 120 (524021)
09-14-2009 7:11 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Coragyps
09-13-2009 10:15 PM


Re: Please Stay On Topic
Coragyps writes:

That being God's house and the house for people, animals, etc. The fourth day is when the sun, moon, and stars were made and stuck to the firmament. Read your book. That's what it says.

i dont believe that your interpretation is correct, thats not really what it says. Its not saying that the sun and moon was created on the forth day

Previously, on the first day, the expression "Let light come to be" was used. The Hebrew word there used for “light” is ohr, meaning light in a general sense.

But on the fourth day, the Hebrew word changes to maohr, which means the SOURCE of the light. ie, the sun.

On the first day diffused light evidently shone through the cloud cover, but the sources of that light could not have been seen by an earthly observer. Now, on this fourth day, things apparently changed and the cloud cover dispersed to allow the sun and moon to become visible from an earthly perspective.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Coragyps, posted 09-13-2009 10:15 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19071
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 73 of 120 (524026)
09-14-2009 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by ICANT
09-14-2009 12:50 AM


Re: old universe
ICANT writes:

Thomas Chalmers actually taught the gap theory to his church in 1804.

Chalmers was reacting to recent discoveries in the field of geology, so let me make a minor change to my question:

Can you point to anyone making such an interpretation before such information came to light in the time since the 19th century?

Gap theory is just a reactive post facto reinterpretation of the Bible in light of modern scientific discoveries, and your other arguments are just more examples of the same thing being performed on other ancient texts.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : "Chambers" => "Chalmers"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by ICANT, posted 09-14-2009 12:50 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by ICANT, posted 09-14-2009 9:23 AM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19071
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 74 of 120 (524029)
09-14-2009 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Peg
09-14-2009 6:26 AM


Re: Please Stay On Topic
Peg writes:

the word Yohm (day) was used in various ways, it could literally mean some time in the past such as 'in the day of Noah' who lived for much longer then 1 day. It can also mean several days such as 'the day of harvest' and the harvest spanned over a week in ancient Israel.

Almost anything written can be interpreted in various ways, but isn't it interesting that the interpretation of a gap didn't appear until it become necessary in order to reduce the number of conflicts with modern science.

But Biblical interpretations are not the topic of this thread. But at least I now I understand what is being claimed, that there was an enormous gap in time after the creation of the earth and universe before the events beginning in verse 2 occur. This means that verse 2 is talking about a time 6,000 years ago, and it says the Earth is formless and void. This is still violently in conflict with modern science, but anyway, how did the Earth end up with a molten outer core and a solid but even hotter inner core?

And science has also added to an improved understanding...many people who study the bible have taken on board that the earth was not made in 6 literal days and they fully accept science in this regard.

How enlightened.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Peg, posted 09-14-2009 6:26 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Peg, posted 09-14-2009 8:19 AM Percy has responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3267 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 75 of 120 (524032)
09-14-2009 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Percy
09-14-2009 7:50 AM


Re: Please Stay On Topic
Percy writes:

Almost anything written can be interpreted in various ways, but isn't it interesting that the interpretation of a gap didn't appear until it become necessary in order to reduce the number of conflicts with modern science.

you have to take into consideration that genesis was written about 4.000 years ago...and moses used a word that indicated long lengths of time, but modern translators were limited in their understanding of hebrew

somethings gotta be said for science in this regard, as it certainly did make people think twice about their translations. thankfully further examination shed light on their error.

Percy writes:

This means that verse 2 is talking about a time 6,000 years ago, and it says the Earth is formless and void.

well actually not quite

the six thousand odd years marks the creation of 'man'
If you use the chronology of the bible, you can actually go back to the birth year of Adam as being 4026 BCE

So the length of each creative day was not necesarily 1,000 years...that would be ludicrous to believe or try to apply to the genesis account. The creative days could have spanned many hundreds of thousands, even millions of years which is more likely and im sure you'd agree.

remember the word Yohm is used to represent 'lengths of time'...that means they could have been any length of time. Genesis does say 'there came to be morning and their came to be evening a first/2nd/3rd day etc' but in light of ancient hebrew, we (jw's) understand it this term to mean 'the beginning and the end of something new.' Similar to how we might say 'a new day dawned'

throughout the Bible, 'Day' is divided up into natural periods: the morning twilight or morning darkness, just before the day’s beginning, the rising of the sun or dawning, the morning , noon or midday, the time of the sunset etc etc...there are many

all these different times are called by the same heberw term 'yohm'
so its only reasonable to conclude that it is the same in the genesis account.

Percy writes:

how did the Earth end up with a molten outer core and a solid but even hotter inner core?

i wouldnt even like to speculate

Edited by Peg, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Percy, posted 09-14-2009 7:50 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Percy, posted 09-14-2009 8:56 AM Peg has responded
 Message 77 by Arphy, posted 09-14-2009 9:17 AM Peg has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019