Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 67 (9030 total)
104 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 103 visitors)
Newest Member: BodhitSLAVa
Post Volume: Total: 884,412 Year: 2,058/14,102 Month: 426/624 Week: 147/163 Day: 2/38 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Problems with Genesis: A Christian Evolutionist's View
granpa
Member (Idle past 1181 days)
Posts: 128
Joined: 10-26-2010


Message 72 of 200 (588637)
10-27-2010 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by willietdog
01-07-2008 8:39 PM


to the op
first let me say that I hear your 'concerns'. I am totally convinced that you are sincere and that you are not just an atheist attempting to spread 'strawman arguments'.

quote:
Genesis 1:20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky."

Genesis 1:23 "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind."

4.We have clear fossil records that prove that life was created in this order: fish, then land animal, then bird not fish + bird then land animal


it says "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let fliers fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky."

flying insects did evolve at that time.

quote:
Genesis 1:3 ("Let there be Light") and Genesis 1:14-19 (creation of sun moon and stars) are used in the next two points.
2.How can there be light before there is a source?

well I cant prove it but I strongly suspect that it originally said that God created 'small round things' and 'round things' and 'great round things' on the 4th day. By the time it was translated into hebrew all knowledge of bacteria and eukaryotes had been lost and so the translators assumed it was referring to the round things in the sky.

these things are complex and multifaceted and I dont claim to have all the answers but that is the truth of it to the very best of my knowledge


maybe the question you should be asking yourself is 'am I asking the right question'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by willietdog, posted 01-07-2008 8:39 PM willietdog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by ringo, posted 10-27-2010 12:46 AM granpa has acknowledged this reply
 Message 74 by Granny Magda, posted 10-27-2010 5:02 AM granpa has acknowledged this reply
 Message 79 by Coragyps, posted 10-27-2010 2:51 PM granpa has acknowledged this reply

  
granpa
Member (Idle past 1181 days)
Posts: 128
Joined: 10-26-2010


Message 75 of 200 (588687)
10-27-2010 1:45 PM


I wouldnt dream of trying to wriggle out of anything since I am not in anything to begin with.

bacteria can give light upon the earth. google 'light emitting bacteria'.

I must say that after thinking about it some more I really doubt that 'fliers' refers to birds or insects (although I think it is still a legitimate possibility. http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=05775). If you look at the overall structure of genesis you get the following.

from darkness light
from light air
from air water
from water earth
from earth life
from life cells
from cells ???
from ??? fish
from fish animals
from animals Adam
from Adam Seth
from Seth Enosh
...

from which we get:

darkness≫bacteria (stars and moon)
light≫eukaryotes (sun)
air≫??? (birds)
sea≫fish
land≫animals
eden≫humans

So ??? should be something that we are descended from and something that came between cells and fish and has some relationship with air.

my guess is that this has to do with the oxygen catastrophe.
the only thing that I can think of is that it refers to some kind of gilled oxygen breathing creature. the 'gills' being as it were 'wings' (extensions). Whatever it was it was clearly something that the translators could not be expected to know about. So it is not surprising that they would render it as 'birds'.

כָּנָף wing
http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=03671
1) wing, extremity, edge, winged, border, corner, shirt
1a) wing
1b) extremity
1b1) skirt, corner (of garment)

Edited by granpa, : No reason given.

Edited by granpa, : No reason given.

Edited by granpa, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by ringo, posted 10-27-2010 2:16 PM granpa has responded
 Message 91 by Granny Magda, posted 10-27-2010 5:11 PM granpa has acknowledged this reply

  
granpa
Member (Idle past 1181 days)
Posts: 128
Joined: 10-26-2010


Message 77 of 200 (588693)
10-27-2010 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by ringo
10-27-2010 2:16 PM


actually it says 'upon' the face of the expanse of heaven
http://interlinearbible.org/genesis/1.htm

pretending not to understand something so as to avoid having to defend your position against it is the height of and indeed the very definition of 'disingenuity'.

Edited by granpa, : No reason given.

Edited by granpa, : No reason given.

Edited by granpa, : No reason given.

Edited by granpa, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by ringo, posted 10-27-2010 2:16 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by ringo, posted 10-27-2010 2:44 PM granpa has responded

  
granpa
Member (Idle past 1181 days)
Posts: 128
Joined: 10-26-2010


Message 80 of 200 (588700)
10-27-2010 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by ringo
10-27-2010 2:44 PM


I clearly stated that they were between cells and fish. That is certainly not bacteria and it shows that you arent listening to, nor making any effort to comprehend, anything that I say.

the 'face of the atmosphere' would obviously be where the atmosphere meets the water.
Its even conceivable (though not necessary) that they stuck their gills completely out of the water and waved them in the air. (That is considered to be one possibility of how insects evolved wings)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by ringo, posted 10-27-2010 2:44 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by ringo, posted 10-27-2010 3:04 PM granpa has responded
 Message 82 by AdminPD, posted 10-27-2010 4:13 PM granpa has acknowledged this reply

  
granpa
Member (Idle past 1181 days)
Posts: 128
Joined: 10-26-2010


Message 83 of 200 (588706)
10-27-2010 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by ringo
10-27-2010 3:04 PM


ah. I see. Mea culpa. And you are right it does say 'in the expanse of shamim'.

you do raise a valid point.
While the overall structure of genesis allows us to see the general pattern (separation and evolution) and thereby guess at the original text, which is lost, unfortunately the details are obscure. Verses 14, 15, 17, & 18 are particularly mysterious.

there are 3 possibilities that I can think of offhand.
1. they werent in the original at all
2. they were in the original but were on the first day rather than the 4th (I am leaning toward this possibility)
3. they are a poor translation of some obscure words whose meaning we cant even guess at (yet).

my 'viewpoint' though should be quite clear. I gave it in its entirety in message 75


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by ringo, posted 10-27-2010 3:04 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-27-2010 4:31 PM granpa has responded
 Message 85 by ringo, posted 10-27-2010 4:40 PM granpa has responded
 Message 93 by Granny Magda, posted 10-27-2010 5:37 PM granpa has acknowledged this reply

  
granpa
Member (Idle past 1181 days)
Posts: 128
Joined: 10-26-2010


Message 86 of 200 (588709)
10-27-2010 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by New Cat's Eye
10-27-2010 4:31 PM


it is wrong there.
the question is why is it wrong there?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-27-2010 4:31 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Coragyps, posted 10-27-2010 4:54 PM granpa has acknowledged this reply
 Message 90 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-27-2010 5:03 PM granpa has acknowledged this reply
 Message 92 by jar, posted 10-27-2010 5:24 PM granpa has acknowledged this reply

  
granpa
Member (Idle past 1181 days)
Posts: 128
Joined: 10-26-2010


Message 87 of 200 (588710)
10-27-2010 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by ringo
10-27-2010 4:40 PM


I already explained verse 16.
It fits very well into the overall pattern (separation and evolution leading to humans) of genesis.

I have no desire to force anyone to accept my interpretation.
I merely present it as a possibility for consideration.
It is very clear that you have already made up your minds on this and thats fine.

Edited by granpa, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by ringo, posted 10-27-2010 4:40 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by ringo, posted 10-27-2010 4:53 PM granpa has acknowledged this reply

  
granpa
Member (Idle past 1181 days)
Posts: 128
Joined: 10-26-2010


Message 135 of 200 (599617)
01-09-2011 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by arachnophilia
12-23-2010 9:07 PM


Re: Not a Time-Line
quote:
while english has many words, you might be interested to know that your own vocabulary is probably quite small. most english-speaking people only use about 2000 words.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_english

quote:
Ogden tried to simplify English while keeping it normal for native speakers, by specifying grammar restrictions and a controlled small vocabulary which makes an extensive use of paraphrasis. Most notably, Ogden allowed only 18 verbs, which he called "operators". His General Introduction says "There are no 'verbs' in Basic English", with the underlying assumption that, as noun use in English is very straightforward but verb use/conjugation is not, the elimination of verbs would be a welcome simplification.[4]
Word lists [edit]

Ogden's word lists include only word roots, which in practice are extended with the defined set of affixes and the full set of forms allowed for any available word (noun, pronoun, or the limited set of verbs).[5]

The 850 core words of Basic English are found in Wiktionary's Appendix:Basic English word list. This core is theoretically enough for everyday life. However, Ogden prescribed that any student should learn an additional 150 word list for everyday work in some particular field, by adding a word list of 100 words particularly useful in a general field (e.g., science, verse, business, etc.), along with a 50-word list from a more specialised subset of that general field, to make a basic 1000 word vocabulary for everyday work and life.

Moreover, Ogden assumed that any student already should be familiar with (and thus may only review) a core subset of around 350 "international" words.[6] Therefore, a first level student should graduate with a core vocabulary of around 1350 words. A realistic general core vocabulary could contain 1500 words (the core 850 words, plus 350 international words, and 300 words for the general fields of trade, economics, and science). A sample 1500 word vocabulary is included in the Simple English Wikipedia.

Ogden provided lists to extend the general 1500 vocabulary to make a 2000 word list, enough for a "standard" English level.[7][8] This 2000 word vocabulary represents "what any learner should know". At this level students could start to move on their own.


with so few words basic english turns out to be easy to understand but hard to speak because it requires elaborate Circumlocutions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumlocution

quote:
Circumlocution (also called periphrasis, circumduction, circumvolution, periphrase, or ambage[1]) is an ambiguous or roundabout figure of speech. In its most basic form, circumlocution is using many words (such as "a tool used for cutting things such as paper and hair") to describe something simple ("scissors"). In this sense, the vast majority of definitions found in dictionaries are circumlocutory.

Circumlocution is often used by aphasics and people learning a new language, where in the absence of a word (such as "abuelo" [grandfather]) the subject can simply be described ("el padre de su padre" [the father of one's father]). It is also used frequently in Basic English, a constructed dialect of non-regional English.


Now think of all the times you've had to resort to 'hey, I know it when I see it'.

Basic english isnt as easy as it looks.

2000 words is not really enough for easy communication

Edited by granpa, : No reason given.

Edited by granpa, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by arachnophilia, posted 12-23-2010 9:07 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
granpa
Member (Idle past 1181 days)
Posts: 128
Joined: 10-26-2010


Message 136 of 200 (687162)
01-08-2013 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by willietdog
01-07-2008 8:39 PM


only animals that are ancestors of humans are listed


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by willietdog, posted 01-07-2008 8:39 PM willietdog has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021