Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
33 online now:
caffeine, JoeT, kjsimons, PaulK, Theodoric (5 members, 28 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,831 Year: 16,867/19,786 Month: 992/2,598 Week: 238/251 Day: 9/58 Hour: 4/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   If our sun is second or third generation, does this not conflict with Genesis ?
jar
Member
Posts: 31277
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 20 of 231 (615364)
05-12-2011 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by fearandloathing
05-12-2011 12:21 PM


Re: Science?
What Jon isquestioning is the fable being a creation fable as opposed to an organization fable. The initial image in Genesis 1 is of Chaos, a chaos system that exists but that the God character brings into order. It is not so much an act of creating land as of separating it from the water.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by fearandloathing, posted 05-12-2011 12:21 PM fearandloathing has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31277
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 28 of 231 (615392)
05-12-2011 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by CogitoErgoSum
05-12-2011 5:48 PM


Re: Science?
CogitoErgoSum writes:

Sorry I hadn't had time to reply. My very quick version of Genesis, 1st day light, 3rd day land

First day: God (Elohim) creates light ("Let there be light!")[Gen 1:3]

Second day: God creates a firmament ("Let a firmament be...!")[Gen 1:6–7]—the second command—to divide the waters above from the waters below.

Third day: God commands the waters below to be gathered together in one place, and dry land to appear (the third command).[Gen 1:9–10]

and the question I was asking, perhaps a little glibly, was that if our sun is a second or even third generation star, how is this accounted for in this narrative ?

Sorry, I realise I hadn't explained this clearly. Put it down to my forum virginity.

Must try harder ........

It isn't.

Genesis 1 is a much later story than the rest of Genesis but the emphasis was not on the creation narrative, rather the narrative was simply a plot device to discuss in poetic language the relationships between man and God and God and creation as seen by the people of that time and culture, likely between 640-610 BCE.

The main purposes were to establish the Sabbath and to show what the people then saw as the relationship and overarching nature of their God.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by CogitoErgoSum, posted 05-12-2011 5:48 PM CogitoErgoSum has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31277
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 37 of 231 (615482)
05-13-2011 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by NoNukes
05-13-2011 12:39 PM


Re: Age Of Sun
NoNukes writes:


The sun is actually several billions of years old. 30 million years is essentially a new born sun for stars of the size of sol and smaller.

Sure about that?

Maybe the size of Jupiter or a little larger?

I didn't think something with the mass of Earth or less would be capable of becoming a star?


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by NoNukes, posted 05-13-2011 12:39 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Taq, posted 05-13-2011 12:48 PM jar has responded
 Message 39 by Rahvin, posted 05-13-2011 12:58 PM jar has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31277
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 40 of 231 (615485)
05-13-2011 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Taq
05-13-2011 12:48 PM


Re: Age Of Sun
Taq writes:

Sure about that?

Maybe the size of Jupiter or a little larger?

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).

What stars the size of Sol and smaller?

I did not think such a critter was possible?


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Taq, posted 05-13-2011 12:48 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Taq, posted 05-13-2011 3:18 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31277
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 41 of 231 (615486)
05-13-2011 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Rahvin
05-13-2011 12:58 PM


Re: Age Of Sun
Rahvin writes:

jar writes:

NoNukes writes:


The sun is actually several billions of years old. 30 million years is essentially a new born sun for stars of the size of sol and smaller.

Sure about that?

Maybe the size of Jupiter or a little larger?

I didn't think something with the mass of Earth or less would be capable of becoming a star?

A body needs to be several times larger than Jupiter to achieve fusion and become a star. Jupiter is the biggest gas giant in our solar system, but it's not really that big compared to other gas giants we've detected elsewhere.

That's what I thought; not necessarily several times larger but at least more massive.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Rahvin, posted 05-13-2011 12:58 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Straggler, posted 05-13-2011 1:35 PM jar has acknowledged this reply
 Message 43 by Rahvin, posted 05-13-2011 1:47 PM jar has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31277
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 48 of 231 (615510)
05-13-2011 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by NoNukes
05-13-2011 4:14 PM


Evening and Morning, the classic Jewish Day.
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:
5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

13And the evening and the morning were the third day.

19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

23And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.


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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by NoNukes, posted 05-13-2011 4:14 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Buzsaw, posted 05-13-2011 11:11 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31277
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 97 of 231 (616381)
05-21-2011 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Buzsaw
05-20-2011 10:26 PM


Re: Assumptions
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Buzsaw, posted 05-20-2011 10:26 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31277
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 101 of 231 (616447)
05-22-2011 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by bluescat48
05-22-2011 1:02 AM


Re: you're going to have to "Stuudy Genesis" even more than that.
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by bluescat48, posted 05-22-2011 1:02 AM bluescat48 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by bluescat48, posted 05-22-2011 9:37 AM jar has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31277
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 103 of 231 (616450)
05-22-2011 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by bluescat48
05-22-2011 9:37 AM


Re: you're going to have to "Stuudy Genesis" even more than that.
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by bluescat48, posted 05-22-2011 9:37 AM bluescat48 has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31277
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 111 of 231 (616555)
05-23-2011 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by bluescat48
05-22-2011 11:46 PM


Re: you're going to have to "Stuudy Genesis" even more than that.
The period in the second half of 600BCE in Judah under King Josiah was one of great reform and a major revision of the descriptions of the Jewish God specifically to purge other gods and establish a distinctly different "Hebrew God". It was when Genesis 1 and Deuteronomy were written and leading to the still later writing of Leviticus that sets out the ritual and holiness codes.

It's a revision of YHWH from the older mighty human character to an overarching supreme, aloof and somewhat distant character.

Both of these were new constructs, a new defining of God, the Priesthood and man and a redefining of the relationships between each.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by bluescat48, posted 05-22-2011 11:46 PM bluescat48 has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31277
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 118 of 231 (616748)
05-24-2011 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by granpa
05-24-2011 10:00 AM


Re: you're going to have to "Stuudy Genesis" even more than that.
granpa writes:

"literary analysis"?

how are you going to analyze the oral tradition when we dont even know what language it was in?

It may even be a dead language

We are not analyzing the oral tradition; we are analyzing the WRITTEN work, and Genesis 1 as well as Deuteronomy and Leviticus were written thousands of years after any oral tradition. They are post-exile writings created during the reformation in Judah in the second half of the 6th Century BCE and the first half of the 5th Century BCE.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by granpa, posted 05-24-2011 10:00 AM granpa has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by granpa, posted 05-24-2011 10:46 AM jar has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31277
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 120 of 231 (616755)
05-24-2011 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by granpa
05-24-2011 10:46 AM


Re: you're going to have to "Stuudy Genesis" even more than that.
granpa writes:

"we" were discussing post 90.

the hebrew written version of genesis may indeed have been influenced by babylonian mythology but I suggested in post 90 that both were influenced by a much earlier (and much more accurate) preflood and prebabel oral tradition. I also suggested that the language may now be dead.

Yes, I understand that is what you are claiming.

However the Genesis 1 story as well as Deuteronomy and Leviticus are relatively modern creations designed to establish a unique Hebrew theology.

There was no Biblical Flood. Never happened.

There was no Tower of Babel as described in the story. Never happened.

Genesis 1, Deuteronomy and Leviticus were written during the purge of other religions and gods and the reformation initiated under King Josiah of Judah. The whole goal of that reformation was to create a new and unique Hebrew people that was different from what they had experienced either during the exile or during the preceding years post exile.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by granpa, posted 05-24-2011 10:46 AM granpa has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Eliyahu, posted 02-21-2014 7:35 AM jar has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31277
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 124 of 231 (616767)
05-24-2011 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by granpa
05-24-2011 11:07 AM


Re: you're going to have to "Stuudy Genesis" even more than that.
granpa writes:

It is true there is no direct empirical evidence for this theory but we can extrapolate from what we can see to what we cant see.

we cant see neutrons directly but we can infer their existence anyway.

And we can test for their existence.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by granpa, posted 05-24-2011 11:07 AM granpa has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by granpa, posted 05-24-2011 11:17 AM jar has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31277
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 126 of 231 (616773)
05-24-2011 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by granpa
05-24-2011 11:17 AM


Re: you're going to have to "Stuudy Genesis" even more than that.
granpa writes:

And how do you test something like the documentary hypothesis?

By examining both the documents themselves as well as actual history.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by granpa, posted 05-24-2011 11:17 AM granpa has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31277
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 137 of 231 (720238)
02-21-2014 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Eliyahu
02-21-2014 7:35 AM


Re: you're going to have to "Stuudy Genesis" even more than that.
Of course there are proofs that the Biblical flood never happened and I have presented them here many times.

In fact the Bible proves that the Biblical flood never happened.

I will present it yet again in the hope that you will never again post anything as silly as an assertion that the Biblical flood ever happened.

quote:
In the version of the myth found in Genesis 6 God instructs Noah to:

quote:
19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. 21 You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them."

In the version of the myth found in Genesis 7 we see similar (close but not the same) instructions:

quote:
2 Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.

We also find similar explanations of what will be destroyed in Genesis 6 it says:

quote:
7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them."

and in Genesis 7:

quote:
4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made."

In both myths lots of critters get killed, in the myth found in Genesis 6 it seems to be talking about land animals and birds while the myth found in Genesis 7 goes even further and wipes out all living things.

If we play mix and match and take the best scenario from each of the myths we might be able to claim that only the birds and land animals were wiped out based on the passage from the Genesis 6 story and that we have the larger saved population found in Genesis 7.

Based on that mix and match game set we have a situation where all land animals and birds found today will be descended from a population that consisted of at most fourteen critters (seven pairs of clean animals and birds) and at worst case four critters (two pair of unclean animals).

Now that is what I would call a real bottleneck.

We know we can see bottlenecks in the genetic record; a great example is the one in Cheetahs but we even see them in the human genome and most other species.

BUT...

If the flood actually happened we would see a bottleneck in EVERY species of animal living on the land and EVERY bird and EVERY one of the bottlenecks show up in the SAME historical time period.

Talk about a big RED flag.

That bottleneck signature would be something every geneticists in the world would see. It would be like a neon sign, Broadway at midnight on New Years Eve. It would be something even a blind geneticist could see.

So it seems to me to be a very simple test that will support or refute the Flood.

If that genetic marker is there in EVERY species living on land or bird of the air, then there is support for the flood. It does not prove the flood happened but it would be very strong support.

If on the other hand that genetic marker is NOT there, then the Flood is refuted.


And there is no genetic bottleneck signature common to all animals pointing to the same event; thus the Biblical flood has been totally and completely refuted.

It really is that simple.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Eliyahu, posted 02-21-2014 7:35 AM Eliyahu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Eliyahu, posted 02-21-2014 8:51 AM jar 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