Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
66 online now:
PaulK, vimesey (2 members, 64 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,122 Year: 4,234/6,534 Month: 448/900 Week: 154/150 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Problems with Genesis: A Christian Evolutionist's View
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2901 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 16 of 200 (447379)
01-09-2008 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by ICANT
01-09-2008 1:21 AM


Re: Re-Genesis
You are correct that Genesis does NOT say the universe was created in 6 days, and that there is clearly a source listed for the effect of light, in the same verse light is introduced. It is the anti-creationists who are the unsceintific ones here, giving no cause for their effect. But we have a problem here: it is a taboo for a assumed scientific person to admit being wrong, and be whipped by an assumed mythical theology. I fully symphatise, but science itself was introduced in this mythical theology: follow the thread of history, and ask if we would have cosmology or astronomy today, w/o the recording of a finite universe - which compelled man to ask further subsequent and relevent questions? It certainly compelled one to ask questions - and the most scientific premise of Monotheism was born.

quote:

You say we have all most fool proof evidence. I would like to see proof concerning when the sun was created and the earth as far as that matters.

The sun was creaed in V.1: 'IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS' - this refers to the galaxies and stars. When we check further, only the sun's luminosity is referred to:

quote:
16 And God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; and the stars.

The word, 'LIGHT' [Luminosity] is used here, to give such luminocity at night.

quote:

Man has no Evidence of how the universe was started nor from what.

Correct, and this was first stated in genesis.

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by ICANT, posted 01-09-2008 1:21 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by arachnophilia, posted 01-09-2008 3:11 AM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 36 by ICANT, posted 01-10-2008 8:31 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 576 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 17 of 200 (447384)
01-09-2008 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by IamJoseph
01-09-2008 2:43 AM


Re: Re-Genesis
quote:
16 And God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; and the stars.

The word, 'LIGHT' [Luminosity] is used here, to give such luminocity at night.

no, joseph, the other form meaning "source of light" is used here. compare:

quote:
וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, יְהִי אוֹר; וַיְהִי-אוֹר
v'yo'amar elohim "yehey or!", v'yehey or.
and god said, "be, light!" and light was.

quote:
וַיַּעַשׂ אֱלֹהִים, אֶת-שְׁנֵי הַמְּאֹרֹת הַגְּדֹלִים
v'y'as elohim et-ha-shani ha-maorot ha-gdolim
and god made the two great lights

you could render the second as "luminaries" or "lamps" if you wish, but it means "source of light." the first is just light in general, and the days are evidently lit.

You are correct that Genesis does NOT say the universe was created in 6 days,

there is no word for "universe" in biblical hebrew. nor is there for "planet" btw. but the picture genesis presents is the whole of known creation. that is, after all, the point of writing, "when god began creating..." as the very first words. there can be nothing before this point, by definition.

It is the anti-creationists who are the unsceintific ones here, giving no cause for their effect.

the cause is god. god commands light to exist, and it does. why does it need a source?

I fully symphatise, but science itself was introduced in this mythical theology: follow the thread of history, and ask if we would have cosmology or astronomy today, w/o the recording of a finite universe - which compelled man to ask further subsequent and relevent questions? It certainly compelled one to ask questions

...so the authors of the bible got it wrong, and this compelled scientists to get it right? i'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

Edited by arachnophilia, : broken tags


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by IamJoseph, posted 01-09-2008 2:43 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by IamJoseph, posted 01-09-2008 3:38 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2901 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 18 of 200 (447385)
01-09-2008 3:38 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by arachnophilia
01-09-2008 3:11 AM


Re: Re-Genesis
quote:
no, joseph, the other form meaning "source of light" is used here. compare:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, יְהִי אוֹר; וַיְהִי-אוֹר
v'yo'amar elohim "yehey or!", v'yehey or.
and god said, "be, light!" and light was.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
וַיַּעַשׂ אֱלֹהִים, אֶת-שְׁנֵי הַמְּאֹרֹת הַגְּדֹלִים
v'y'as elohim et-ha-shani ha-maorot ha-gdolim
and god made the two great lights
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

you could render the second as "luminaries" or "lamps" if you wish, but it means "source of light." the first is just light in general, and the days are evidently lit.


Propostrous. You are wrong on two counts: the word 'source', or result, etc are not in the text, while it is contextually posited only with light as in lumonosity; making the night bright; etc. The second wrong count is that the sun was created along with the galaxies [heavens], in V.1., making your premise superfluous. There is not single grammatical error in the OT, which says something for a 3,500 year document.

quote:
You are correct that Genesis does NOT say the universe was created in 6 days,

there is no word for "universe" in biblical hebrew. nor is there for "planet" btw. but the picture genesis presents is the whole of known creation. that is, after all, the point of writing, "when god began creating..." as the very first words. there can be nothing before this point, by definition.


The word 'olam' = world in generic, while the earth = both this planet, and earth as in physicality and matter. It would have been grammaitcally wrong to mention the universe to the people of that spacetime; thus the OT uses words which can be understood by all generations.

quote:

the cause is god. god commands light to exist, and it does. why does it need a source?

The point here is, a source is named, while its antithesis has no source, thus no cause for effect.

quote:

I fully symphatise, but science itself was introduced in this mythical theology: follow the thread of history, and ask if we would have cosmology or astronomy today, w/o the recording of a finite universe - which compelled man to ask further subsequent and relevent questions? It certainly compelled one to ask questions

...so the authors of the bible got it wrong, and this compelled scientists to get it right? i'm not sure what you're trying to say here.


Its not confusng. science evolved, via ups and downs, but it had to begin somewhere, by a compelling, challenging tought - which is the OT. Unless someone can posit another previous or near the same time, even a document a 1000 years later than the OT, which makes stats which leads to science? I find literally millions of stats in the OT words and verses as scientifically, historically and geographically vindicated, while it displays such with bold, specific dates and names. Remember, the most controversial and risk prone stat today is that speech endowed humans are some 6000 years old, and that the pig has a hidden biological attribute not shared by any other life form: we cannot disprove these today, despite every advancement.

There is an unscientific display by the anti-creationists, who have much to loose: they cannot acknowledge what is blatant, because it is the document which spurred their premises. But my pursuit s truth, and this is nly possible via truthfulness.

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by arachnophilia, posted 01-09-2008 3:11 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by arachnophilia, posted 01-10-2008 5:29 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33890
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 19 of 200 (447415)
01-09-2008 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by IamJoseph
01-09-2008 1:58 AM


Re: Need clarification.
I still need the chapter and verse from Genesis that supports a calendar, not a cut-n-paste from some website.

Today's birds were Jurasic dinousaurs, is my understanding. Animals did not come before birds.

That may well be true depending on which Creation Myth you happen to be using, but the reality is that birds are animals. Dinosaurs were animals.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by IamJoseph, posted 01-09-2008 1:58 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by IamJoseph, posted 01-10-2008 7:25 PM jar has replied
 Message 31 by IamJoseph, posted 01-10-2008 7:25 PM jar has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5971
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 20 of 200 (447417)
01-09-2008 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by IamJoseph
01-09-2008 2:19 AM


Re: Welcome
Chellenge: care to post any other document with 5% of the scientific stats listed previously?

I'm not sure what "listed previously" means here. If it is a reference to your post in Message 6, then that is just your exotic interpretation, so not relevant.

Really? Care to evidence your claim?

The reference is Genesis 1. It is easy enough the read, and what it says is simple, eloquant, and supports my point - at least to honest readers who do not attempt to impose their own exotic interpretations on the text.

quote:
As you point out, the sun, moon, stars were created later. They are described as some sort of lighting fixtures installed in the ceiling.

No, I never said that.


LOL.

I was responding to willietdog. So unless you are also willietdog (a violation of the forum rules), then my "As you point out" was not talking about you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by IamJoseph, posted 01-09-2008 2:19 AM IamJoseph has taken no action

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2280 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 21 of 200 (447523)
01-09-2008 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by willietdog
01-07-2008 8:39 PM


Hi, I'm a Christian Evolutionist, which to me means that I beleive in a non literal interpretation of Genesis.

This means you use the Atheist interpretation of scientific evidence to "interpret" Genesis through. We have never seen any Biblical scholar endorse this filter to interpret Genesis.

Willie: how does anyone know that you are a Christian? This is a debate or discussion Forum that requires evidence to support claims. Where is the evidence that you are a Christian? The evidence that you have provided (rejection of Genesis one and two) says you are not a Christian.

Willie: are you aware that nearly all Atheists are evolutionists? Do you think they support evolution because it supports Christianity? Needless to say, Willie, they support evolution because evolution claims to refute Christianity. Again, this is more evidence that you are not a Christian since Christians and Atheists have diametrically contradicting beliefs concerning ORIGINS.

Willie: how does anyone who does not know you verify that you are a Christian?

Based on the evidence that you have given us you are either ignorant, confused or even lying ("but I would rather not consider that").

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by willietdog, posted 01-07-2008 8:39 PM willietdog has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by bluescat48, posted 01-09-2008 5:20 PM Cold Foreign Object has taken no action
 Message 23 by jar, posted 01-09-2008 5:31 PM Cold Foreign Object has taken no action
 Message 24 by ringo, posted 01-09-2008 5:42 PM Cold Foreign Object has taken no action
 Message 25 by Rahvin, posted 01-09-2008 5:57 PM Cold Foreign Object has taken no action

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 3422 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 22 of 200 (447528)
01-09-2008 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Cold Foreign Object
01-09-2008 4:51 PM


Cold Foreign Object
Needless to say, Willie, they support evolution because evolution claims to refute Christianity.

I support evolution because it is more logical and has more proof than does Genesis. I couldn't care less about a persons belief or lack of belief in a religious denomination.

Edited by bluescat48, : No reason given.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-09-2008 4:51 PM Cold Foreign Object has taken no action

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33890
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 23 of 200 (447530)
01-09-2008 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Cold Foreign Object
01-09-2008 4:51 PM


Try truth for a change Ray.
This means you use the Atheist interpretation of scientific evidence to "interpret" Genesis through. We have never seen any Biblical scholar endorse this filter to interpret Genesis.

That of course is nonsense Ray, and nonsense that has been pointed out to you many times over the years here at EvC.

quote:
"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation"

St Augustine


Why must you continue "speaking so idiotically on these matters?"


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-09-2008 4:51 PM Cold Foreign Object has taken no action

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19520
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 24 of 200 (447534)
01-09-2008 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Cold Foreign Object
01-09-2008 4:51 PM


Ray writes:

Willie: how does anyone who does not know you verify that you are a Christian?

"By their fruits ye shall know them" - not by their Rayving.


“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT

“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-09-2008 4:51 PM Cold Foreign Object has taken no action

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 195 days)
Posts: 3966
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 25 of 200 (447541)
01-09-2008 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Cold Foreign Object
01-09-2008 4:51 PM


Willie: are you aware that nearly all Atheists are evolutionists? Do you think they support evolution because it supports Christianity? Needless to say, Willie, they support evolution because evolution claims to refute Christianity. Again, this is more evidence that you are not a Christian since Christians and Atheists have diametrically contradicting beliefs concerning ORIGINS.

Ray, are you aware that all squirrels are mammals?

Does this mean all mammals are squirrels?

By your "logic," dogs, cats, whales, cows, and all other mammals must be squirrels.

Not all Christians are your kind of Christians. You don't get a monopoly on the word for people who agree precisely with your view, any more than I am forced to agree with all other Atheists about everything in order to still call myself one.


Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-09-2008 4:51 PM Cold Foreign Object has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by subbie, posted 01-09-2008 6:13 PM Rahvin has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 487 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 26 of 200 (447547)
01-09-2008 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Rahvin
01-09-2008 5:57 PM


any more than I am forced to agree with all other Atheists about everything in order to still call myself one.

I guess you didn't get the memo.

We kicked you out at the last meeting for saying "Gesundheit" too many times.


Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Rahvin, posted 01-09-2008 5:57 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Rahvin, posted 01-09-2008 6:18 PM subbie has taken no action

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 195 days)
Posts: 3966
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 27 of 200 (447550)
01-09-2008 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by subbie
01-09-2008 6:13 PM


I guess you didn't get the memo.

We kicked you out at the last meeting for saying "Gesundheit" too many times.

Lies and slander! I never say "Gesundheit!"

I say "Bless you." Yes, I am aware of the irony.


Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by subbie, posted 01-09-2008 6:13 PM subbie has taken no action

  
ThreeDogs
Member (Idle past 5083 days)
Posts: 77
From: noli me calcare
Joined: 01-08-2008


Message 28 of 200 (447633)
01-10-2008 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by willietdog
01-07-2008 8:39 PM


One creation story
one thousand creation stories. The earth was created; describing this creation differs from observer to observer. In other words, I am describing a phenom my way, you take the same phenom and describe it your way. Does that change the event?

You will not prove God, creation, and everything inbetween. It is not meant to be proved. Origins from a non-creation pov, will also not be proved.

I want to know what origins has to do with evolution.

Edited by ThreeDogs, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by willietdog, posted 01-07-2008 8:39 PM willietdog has taken no action

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 576 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 29 of 200 (447741)
01-10-2008 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by IamJoseph
01-09-2008 3:38 AM


Re: Re-Genesis
Propostrous. You are wrong on two counts: the word 'source', or result, etc are not in the text, while it is contextually posited only with light as in lumonosity; making the night bright; etc.

joseph, surely you see the difference between these two words?

אור and מאור

see that great big "mem" on the beginning of the second one? in general, it's a prefix that means "where." in this case, the combination of it and the first word have formed a new word, meaning "source of light." literally derived from "where the light is." so yes, the word "source" is in the text, both literally and etymologically.

The second wrong count is that the sun was created along with the galaxies [heavens], in V.1., making your premise superfluous.

heaven is created on day two. earth is created on day three. the sun and moon and stars are created on day four. one needs only to read the first chapter of genesis to see this. the first verse, which reads:

quote:
when god began creating the heaven and the earth...

it rather clearly applies to the rest of the chapter which follows and not a creative action of its own. we can tell this because it's a dependent clause, in hebrew. evidence for this position may be found in my thread on the subject, initially posted in response to you. it's also worth noting that you never once replied there.

further, "heaven and earth" is a merism, loosely meaning "everything." you are essentially saying that the rest of the chapter (where it describes creation) doesn't matter, because everything was created instantly in the first verse. this is an irresponsible, incorrect, and just rather silly way to read. why ignore 30 verses in favor of an obviously flawed reading of one? the text says the sun is created on day four. deal with it.

There is not single grammatical error in the OT, which says something for a 3,500 year document.

anyone who thinks there aren't scribal errors simply hasn't studied the text enough. and if you prefer the KJV, this point is especially ironic -- the KJV favors the qere over the kethiv. meaning, the marginal notes where people wrote "this bit doesn't make any sense, they probably meant this."

The word 'olam' = world in generic

that's modern hebrew. in biblical hebrew, olam means "eternity."

while the earth = both this planet, and earth as in physicality and matter.

eretz means "land" or "country" or "ground." the concept of a planet, in the modern sense, just does not exist in the bible.

t would have been grammaitcally wrong to mention the universe to the people of that spacetime; thus the OT uses words which can be understood by all generations.

"grammatically wrong?"

Its not confusng. science evolved, via ups and downs, but it had to begin somewhere, by a compelling, challenging tought - which is the OT. Unless someone can posit another previous or near the same time, even a document a 1000 years later than the OT, which makes stats which leads to science?

the enuma elish. older than the bible, same cosmological picture. same thing with egyptian mythology -- which was more directly connected to the greek traditions from which western science derive.

I find literally millions of stats in the OT words and verses as scientifically, historically and geographically vindicated, while it displays such with bold, specific dates and names. Remember, the most controversial and risk prone stat today is that speech endowed humans are some 6000 years old, and that the pig has a hidden biological attribute not shared by any other life form: we cannot disprove these today, despite every advancement.

what an interesting double standard.

There is an unscientific display by the anti-creationists, who have much to loose: they cannot acknowledge what is blatant, because it is the document which spurred their premises. But my pursuit s truth, and this is nly possible via truthfulness.

if your pursuit is truth, and your map is the bible, maybe you should learn how to read it correctly before making such claims. you have rather clearly demonstrated a complete disregard for the words of the bible above.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by IamJoseph, posted 01-09-2008 3:38 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by IamJoseph, posted 01-10-2008 7:46 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2901 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 30 of 200 (447785)
01-10-2008 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by jar
01-09-2008 8:28 AM


Re: Need clarification.
quote:
I still need the chapter and verse from Genesis that supports a calendar, not a cut-n-paste from some website.

My bad - I only gave you about 50 quites from the OT.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by jar, posted 01-09-2008 8:28 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by jar, posted 01-10-2008 7:34 PM IamJoseph has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022