|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 0/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The Unacknowledged Accuracy of Genesis 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
deleted repeated post
Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Two, actually. Genesis also claims that land plants were created before sea creatures. -
quote: So you are saying the atmosphere was created after plants? That is still a problem. -
quote: This is false. When the sun shines on the moon there is plenty of daylight. -
quote: This, too, is false. The amount of weak star light that is filtered out by the earth's atmosphere is not enough to obscure the zodiac. Look at the signs of the zodiac that light in the Milky Way -- the signs are very clear there, even though there are more stars than other parts of the zodiac. -
quote: I don't want to be unkind, but I just wonder why it is so important to reconcile the Genesis creation myth with science that was discovered 2000 years or more after it was written. "The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." -- George Bernard Shaw
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Any attempt to reconcile Biblical passages with actual history before and after the passages were written involves hairsplitting. This is the game you already started. You must think that "pedantism" means pointing out the inconsistencies in your attempt. And I didn't sidetrack -- everything I wrote was directly relevant to your OP. -
quote: OK. Genesis was written by a Bronze Age people over 2500 years ago. It was written long, long before the relevant discoveries that led to our current understanding of the origin of the earth and the universe. Furthermore, in all probability the main purpose for writing Genesis was to provide a metaphorical explanation for the world in which the Hebrew people lived. Therefore, the first chapter in Genesis has very little to do the actual history of the real universe. So your interpretation is both unnecessary and forced. There is my evaluation of your interpretation. -
quote: Not by your terms. You pointed out an example where the order of creation was wrong compared to our current scientific understanding, and then tried to reconcile it. I pointed out that there is another example -- if one needs reconciliation, so does the other. If you are going to play this game, then you can't just choose which problems you are going to deal with. -
quote: By which time the plants, which were created the previous day, would be dead. That is a problem that you are trying to dodge here. What is more, our current understanding is that the atmosphere was formed before plants existed. So, by your own standards, there is a problem with your scenario. -
quote: So? What is the significance of this? To most people "daylight" means "daylight". It means light during the day caused by the sun by which people can see. If you look at those same photographs, you will notice that the austronauts are not using flashlights. That is because they were in daylight and could see. Maybe in ancient Hebrew "daylight" means "blue sky", but I doubt it; you are going to have to do a lot more than just claim this if you want to convince anyone of anything. "The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." -- George Bernard Shaw
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Very interesting -- something that probably would never have occurred to me. But it makes sense. Even when I am in the shadow of a large building or in a valley, I can see perfectly fine. Which is not true for bright light sources that are local. Daylight, come to think of it, really is different that light from an identifiable source. "The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." -- George Bernard Shaw
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
I'm surprised that none of our literalist cousins have yet misquoted some poetic Biblical passage allegedly showing that the Bible already knew that people see by reflected light.
"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." -- George Bernard Shaw
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Yes, so the earth is a disk; over this disk God erected a material sky. So we have a version of the standard Bronze Age Middle Eastern cosmology where the sky is a physical tent over a flat earth. I'm not sure whether this helps your point, though. Edited by Chiroptera, : typo Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: I dunno. Why are you turning it into a sphere? Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Probably one of the more sensible things anyone has said on this topic. -
quote: Yes. I used to be a Christian -- born again, in fact. When I began to doubt the inerrancy of the Bible and the existance of God, I prayed that he would guide me. He guided me to atheism. But this is off-topic here. Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
I have many links which say this. How about actual scholarly works by people who are experts in the field? Q: If science doesn't know where this comes from, then couldn't it be God's doing? A: The only difference between that kind of thinking and the stereotype of the savage who thinks the Great White Hunter is a God because he doesn't know how the hunter's cigarette lighter works is that the savage has an excuse for his ignorance. -- jhuger
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Until science can show otherwise, there is no alternative to Creationism. First, science has shown otherwise; literal Genesis creationism has been pretty much disproven and isn't even an alternative anymore. -
And thread carefully - the OT has never been disproven to date, and over 50% of all its narratives have been proven. I doubt that. The literal Genesis creation account and the literal account of the Flood has been disproven by geology; the account of the Exodus has been disproven by archeaology. The other accounts concerning famous patriarchs, judges, and kings may or may not have occurred, but they certainly have not been proven, either. -
You have to start being objective. Genesis, a 3,500 year old ancient document, containing 100s of 1000s of stats throughout its passages - is proving to be one tough cooky. Actually, it's the stubborness of the creationists and literalists that are proving to be tough cookies. But that is up to them -- people will believe what they will believe -- nothing I can do about it. All I can do is point out their errors -- if they don't want to listen, then there's nothing much else I can do. -
not a single law comes from any other religion, philosophy or advancement. Heh. Of course, the Egyptians, Mesopotamians, Indians, Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Vietnamese, Aztecs, Incas, and so forth had laws long before they ever heard of Moses (and, in some of these cases, long before even Abraham was even born, assuming there even was an Abraham). Q: If science doesn't know where this comes from, then couldn't it be God's doing? A: The only difference between that kind of thinking and the stereotype of the savage who thinks the Great White Hunter is a God because he doesn't know how the hunter's cigarette lighter works is that the savage has an excuse for his ignorance. -- jhuger
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024