Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,121 Year: 5,378/9,624 Month: 403/323 Week: 43/204 Day: 19/24 Hour: 1/2

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   The Problems with Genesis: A Christian Evolutionist's View
Member (Idle past 5071 days)
Posts: 57
From: Canada
Joined: 08-22-2008

Message 55 of 200 (484645)
09-30-2008 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by IamJoseph
01-09-2008 2:27 AM

Need more clarification.
IamJoseph writes:
No contest - with qualification.
But the species that fly ['fowl'/Genesis] came after fish, chronologically. Then came mammals.
I take it the earlier reference to "animals" was intended to be a reference to "mammals". Birds, mammals, reptiles, fish and insects, crustaceans and corals and sponges, to name only a few, are all animals.
Animals, therefore, existed even before fish.
Mammals did not come after birds. Mammals are derived from early synapsid (aka "mammal-like") reptiles and the dinosaur-bird group from early diapsid reptiles. These groups lived concurrently. Early mammals lived concurrently with dinosaurs in the Jurassic, even before the transition of theropod dinosaurs into birds.
Furthermore, the Genesis reference to "creeping things" in v. 24 refers inter alia to reptilian and invertebrate life meaning Genesis has the ancestors of birds (terrestrial reptiles) created on day 6 after birds on day 5 as well as all terrestrial invertebrate life such as ants,worms, spiders, etc.
Adatation never produced speech, despite animals and birds being older life forms, and speech being the most powerful adaptation tool.
These are a couple of ad hoc assertions without evidence to back them up. Who says adaptation never produced speech? Speech is certainly a powerful tool, but by what measure is it the most powerful adaptation?
I suggest reading The First Word by Christine Kenneally before coming to unwarranted conclusions on the evolution of speech.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by IamJoseph, posted 01-09-2008 2:27 AM IamJoseph has not replied

Member (Idle past 5071 days)
Posts: 57
From: Canada
Joined: 08-22-2008

Message 56 of 200 (484646)
09-30-2008 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by IamJoseph
01-09-2008 1:58 AM

Re: Need clarification.
The Hebrew Calendar: Origins and History.
I did not see a citation for this information. Where did it come from?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by IamJoseph, posted 01-09-2008 1:58 AM IamJoseph has not replied

Member (Idle past 5071 days)
Posts: 57
From: Canada
Joined: 08-22-2008

Message 57 of 200 (484648)
09-30-2008 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by IamJoseph
01-09-2008 2:19 AM

Re: Welcome
IamJoseph writes:
As I said before, grammar was inroduced in the OT
Grammar, in fact, is a function of all language, and, according to Noam Chomsky and other linguists, is hard-wired in the human brain. You may be referring to codified grammar which would only be introduced with writing, much later than the evolution of the grammatical structures that make coherent speech possible.
AFAIK the earliest and most comprehensive of grammars was that developed for Sanskrit.
Where does the OT include grammar lessons?
My comprehension of this text says the firmament refers to the bottom of earth, not the sky, and relates to the separation of land from water, a vital pre-action for life.
The firmament is called "Sky" in most English translations and "Heavens" (shamayim) in Hebrew. It is created on the second day. Land was parted from the waters "below the shamayim" on the third day.
It appears you have developed a very ad hoc exegesis of Genesis.
The lighting fixtures you speak of, came from the greeks, a 1000 years later, which produced the flat earth scenario via christianity. In fact, when one examines the OT calendar, there is no other concluding other than that the earth is a spherical, moving body. There is no hint or remote inference of a flat earth in the OT!
Yes, I've seen those greek drawings. You are displaying a poor history knowledge here.
Note to self: order replacement irony meter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by IamJoseph, posted 01-09-2008 2:19 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by IamJoseph, posted 10-01-2008 12:43 AM gluadys has replied

Member (Idle past 5071 days)
Posts: 57
From: Canada
Joined: 08-22-2008

Message 59 of 200 (484652)
09-30-2008 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Hawkins
09-30-2008 5:15 AM

Hawkins writes:
Hi willietdog,
Our knowledge is bound by the 3D environment we are living in. If we are willing to open to possibility and grow our knowledge to what limited us. You may find that, 1) there is always an adjacent space for earth to be made in the 4th and upper spatial dimension, then Earth is put to its current position on day 4, thou by the limit of concept we assumed that planet earth is always in its current location.
Appealing to ad hoc speculation does not make a sound case for the scientific reliability of Genesis.
Bear in mind that if Earch was not where it is now, Genesis can be literally correct.
No, it doesn't since Genesis never refers literally to a 4th dimension. That simply distorts the text with a quirky interpretation for no other reason than to make it fit your preconception that Genesis must be "literally" correct.
But why does it matter if Genesis is not "literally" correct? It was never intended to be a science text.
It is amazing how often anti-evolutionists resort to extreme and highly un-literal interpretations to support a hermeneutic of the "literal correctness" of scripture.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Hawkins, posted 09-30-2008 5:15 AM Hawkins has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Buzsaw, posted 10-02-2008 10:49 PM gluadys has replied

Member (Idle past 5071 days)
Posts: 57
From: Canada
Joined: 08-22-2008

Message 62 of 200 (484700)
10-01-2008 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by IamJoseph
10-01-2008 12:43 AM

IamJoseph writes:
gluadys writes:
Grammar, in fact, is a function of all language, and, according to Noam Chomsky
Of course, language, thus grammar, is hard wired, and this says language did not/could not, be a result of accumulated evolution from grunts and hisses.
This was not an original premise of Chomsky, who exploited some ancient lessons and passed it on with some embelishments to the world; he also admits speech poses a great difficulty for evolution: its sudden emergence, without evidential imprints throughout all past times, denies adaptation of the most powerful tool in the universe: speech.
Chomsky is the finest linguist of this (and perhaps any) generation. But he is a linguist, not a biologist, nor has he made any in-depth studies of animal communicative patterns.
A newer generation of linguists (Steve Pinker, Christine Kenneally, Sue Savage-Wambaugh, et al) have made considerable strides in working out the evolution of human speech from non-human communication.
That the OT introduced grammar refers to only what it says, without contradictions,
Grammar is not about what a text says.
We have no sanskrit alphabetical books pre-OT, and never mind grammar. Sanskrit is not that old.
That doesn't mean it does not have the oldest codified grammar.
The OT writings also self contain numerals, whereby it can be verified for its grammar as well as its accuracy. You will note that with the giving of the Ten Commandments, for example, there is a verse which says 'REMEMBER *THIS* DAY AS THE SATURDAY. If you check *THIS* day, it alligns with the entire 2,500 year period of 1000s of dates and life spans displayed in the OT, and when calculated, we see the 10 Cs were indeed given on a Saturday. What has this to do with grammar?
Indeed, this sounds more like a reference to numerology than to grammar.
If you don't know maths and the history of what your saying, there is a good chance your grammar is wanting too.
It would appear that your specialty is the study [sic] of scripture. I expect my years studying language and linguistics and teaching English and French composition and grammar give me a greater claim to understand what grammar is.
In every verse,
In short, nowhere.
What about the term CREATE - the true, technical meaning of this word is only derived in Genesis, used only once in the first creation chapter,
Actually it is used 3 times in Gen. 1 (vs 1, 21 & 27)
Because 'something from nothing' can only happen once, and therafter we can only derive something from something else.
'bara' doesn't mean something from nothing. It is a verb which always has God as its subject, but what God is said to create does not necessarily come from nothing. e.g. "See I have created (bara) the smith who blows the fire of coals and produces a weapon fit for its purpose" Isaiah 54:16
This is supreme, unequalled grammar.
No, it is theology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by IamJoseph, posted 10-01-2008 12:43 AM IamJoseph has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by anglagard, posted 10-01-2008 3:44 AM gluadys has not replied

Member (Idle past 5071 days)
Posts: 57
From: Canada
Joined: 08-22-2008

Message 65 of 200 (484722)
10-01-2008 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by IamJoseph
10-01-2008 4:43 AM

IanJoseph writes:
speech cannot be proven without writings,
A claim that would mean we have no proof of human speech in Australia prior to contact with Europeans.
And speech does not become proven by skeletal remains
It can be inferred by some physical characteristics, such as the placement of the pharynx or the formation of Broca's area in the brain. As we learn more about the genetics governing speech we may also get a time-frame for the acquisition of speech through genetic history.
Birds are older and have greater phonation dexterity than humans, the last [recent] life form: no elevationary adaptation here, no?
Adaptation is not "elevationary". And the brain of birds does not have the same conformation as the human brain. Nevertheless, birds can be surprisingly intelligent.
Irrelevent. Biologists have made even greater errors on this issue, and have no answers for speech's occurence.
Selective use of expertise. You accept Chomsky's expertise in his field because it agrees with your assertions, but reject the expertise of biologists in their field because it does not. A phenomemon known as "cherry-picking" your evidence.
Really!? - did they explain why we have not a single 'name' pre-6000, or did they say human minds also alligned with writings on that exact date too? Maybe they have better excuses than before?
Read them for yourself.
'How' it is said.
And the text does not comment on how it is said: hence no codified grammar.
Yes it does. It means you cannot say Sanskrit grammar predates the OT grammar. And to be grammatical, at least alphabeticals apply.
And I didn't. I said that it appears to be the oldest codified grammar i.e. the oldest literature that comments not on what is said but on how it is said, paying attention to grammatical relationships and studying them with careful attention.
When was the first codified grammar of Hebrew published? i.e. in what Hebrew literature were the different forms of the verb given names and their uses explored?
This depends if you come up with something new or contradicting to Genesis. Did you - so why sic?
I expect someone as well-versed in grammar as you understands the use of 'sic'.
How many grammatically inclined expressionisms in 'LET THERE BE LIGHT'?
The expression is subjunctive and can be used in English in two relevant ways.
1. to express a wish or prayer for something that does not currently exist
2. to command in the third person
I do not know Hebrew well enough to know if both these possibilities exist in Hebrew. I don't even know if Hebrew has a subjunctive.
Do you percieve maybe a metaphor and analogy here, as this verse is used today in so many applications?
Grammatically there is no metaphor in this statement. However,that does not mean it cannot occur in a metaphorical setting or that there is no analogy here. e.g. is the light which is commanded here a physical or spiritual light? Some take it to be "light" in the sense that "God is light" although this would seem to contradict the sense that it is created light. Since it cannot be both eternal and created, this is an analogous treatment of the term "light".
I said this word is limited to the CREATION CHAPTER in Genesis.
Then you are still wrong. Strong lists it as occurring 8 times in Genesis, which means five times in addition to the three in Genesis 1.
Isaiah does not relate to genesis; genesis relates to genesis.
Are you claiming that Hebrew grammar changed significantly between the days of Moses and the days of Isaiah?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by IamJoseph, posted 10-01-2008 4:43 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by IamJoseph, posted 10-01-2008 10:31 AM gluadys has not replied

Member (Idle past 5071 days)
Posts: 57
From: Canada
Joined: 08-22-2008

Message 71 of 200 (484905)
10-03-2008 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Buzsaw
10-02-2008 10:49 PM

What would your response be to my response to Hawkins, as follows, relative to the literacy of Genesis 1?
Earth has no need to have been moved to make Genesis 1 correct. You need to read thoughtfully and carefully, taking care not to add what is not in the words.
Genesis 1 says, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."
Paraphrasing what it says: "In the beginning of the heavens, God created them and in the beginning of the earth, God created it. That's all it says in this opening preface to the chapter. All that statement is saying is whenever the heavens and earth were created, God did it. It doesn't give any information as to when each thing in the heavens was created or when planet earth was created.
This comes before day one when the Spirit of God begins God's work on the void dark waste of the surface of the planet.
Now, the Bible says God had no beginning and no end, i.e. is an eternal supreme creator. One aspect of the Biblical god, Jehovah is that he creates, re-vamps and destroys things in his universe to suit his own purposes and pleasure. So he has been creating, destroying and managing things in his universe forever.
The Bible says that God dwells in the heavens/cosmos and indicates that his abode is far more beautiful and wonderful than what we can imagine here on earth. He also has a host of angelic super human beings around him and moving about throughout the universe where ever he sends them or perhaps has them dwelling. We can't imagine how many billions of other creatures are out in the universe in various forms.

I don't think you are dealing with the question of whether a text needs to be literally correct in order to have truth value. You seem in some ways to be assuming that position, but I am not really sure from your analysis.
To comment further on your analysis, you are obviously covering more than the text of Genesis 1 since angels are nowhere mentioned in this narrative. Nor is there any description of heaven or any association of the heavens with the dwelling place of God.
So you are going more into a systematic theology than a textual interpretation. Certainly well beyond Genesis and especially beyond the Genesis creation texts.
I would absolutely agree with this statement re Gen. 1:1
All that statement is saying is whenever the heavens and earth were created, God did it. It doesn't give any information as to when each thing in the heavens was created or when planet earth was created.
OTOH I am not so sure about this one on Gen. 1:2
This comes before day one when the Spirit of God begins God's work on the void dark waste of the surface of the planet.
I don't think it is necessary to see vv.1-2 as occurring prior to the first creation day. I think it is legitimate to see them as introductory statements relative to the conditions that existed at the beginning of creation. I would see the 'fiat lux' of Gen. 1:3 as the moment when the Spirit of God begins the work of creation.
Personally, I don't put much stock in trying to tie biblical text to modern cosmological concepts. However, given that the thread title is about "problems with Genesis" from the perspective of an evolutionist [sic] I will add that the beginning of the creation of the universe is separated from the beginning of the earth by over 9 billion years. For those who feel it important to reconcile the Genesis account with science, this is another reason not to place v. 2 chronologically ahead of v.3. Light in this universe existed long before the earth. And at the time light came to be, the Spirit of God could not possibly be at work on the surface of a still non-existent planet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Buzsaw, posted 10-02-2008 10:49 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024