Bible Study - Understanding Genesis 1 & 2

You must have been a real blast in history class. And geology, come to that. "The Earth's core is very hot..." --- "You don't know that! You weren't there!" Astronomy --- "It's very cold on Pluto." --- "You've never been, you big fraud!"And I feel sorry for your Sunday school teacher. Please explain what distinction you mean to draw between fact and theory. Is it a theory or a fact that Queen Anne is dead? Were you there when she died?--- What is it to me what the phrase suggests to the more poetic side of your imagination? OK, if you'll take that as a scientific fact, would you accept: "New 'kinds' of animals don't appear in the space of 24 hours" in lieu of my first proposition? No-one has seen it happen, there's no record of it. And there you go. One thing that even you will admit is a fact, and all you have to do is say "I'm inclined to believe that there was something going on there like a Satanic miracle perhaps." No matter how hard a fact you're confronted with, the Devil will always see you through; Beelzebub laughs at scientific facts and makes the nasty things go away with his mighty magic wand.* bangs head softly against desk * Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

quote:

---

This is Bible Study, not Fairy Tale Theater. What you have posted before has no value unless you can back it up with what the bible says.

​

Now, the Bible says that:

​

First, God created light - and it clearly is physical light, not some mysterious "spiritual" light, because he called it "Day".

​

Second, He created plants, which require light.

​

Third, He created light sources, the sun and the stars.

​

You have not explained Biblically where the light came from before the source existed. Nor have you shown Biblically that there was a change from some other light source (e.g. Jesus) to the sun.

---

Dear Ringo,I have diligently answered your question based on the Scripture, but you continue to aske as if it has never been address. If you don't even know what Day it is, how can you expect me to believe you have enough sense to understand my answers?Even if I give you the reconciliation of the proof text (strictly Scripture only) how would I know you have the capacity to understand it? Again, when are you going to stop demonstrating to us your biblical ignorance by making assumptions of the things you have no knowledge about?Scripture says that those who are not bornn again have eyes that can NOT see and ears that can not hear. Tell us your misterious ways of reading into the minds of others. :-)

Dear Dr. Adequate,Excuse, but this is for Bible Study - Understanding Genesis 1 & 2.If you have nothing to contribute to the topic -- which I assume you're abysmally ignorant about -- then, please let us continue without your derogatory comments.Go to another thread and enjoy yourself. Have a nice day. :-) Edited by 4Pillars, : No reason given.Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

I know that "Day" is the light portion of a twenty-four-hour period of earth's rotation. I also know that "Day" is caused by the light of the sun, and therefore I know that there could not have been "Day" before the sun existed.I expect that most people reading this know the same thing. If you "know" something that we don't know, the onus is on you to explain. My capacity to understand is less important than your capacity to explain. Or are you just preaching to the choir?If your reason for being here is to puff yourself up by putting others down, then you might very well succeed. If your reason for being here is to learn something, you're getting off on the wrong foot by pretending to know everything already. If your reason for being here is to teach something, you're an abject failure. I have asked you to stop saying that. If you can't learn to play well with others, you'll find that the Admins aren't always as easy-going as I am.Please stop the silly ad hominem attacks. Have a little respect for the other people reading this - they can make up their own minds about what an idiot I am. I do have over 2600 posts for then to assess me by.Also, please stop the silly fairy-tale hokum when you're trying to "explain" that light is not light or that day is not day. Non sequitur, non sequitur, non sequitur.Edited by Ringo, : Pluralization(s).

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This one is a relatively mild infraction but it is the straw that breaks the camals back.You will take an 8 hour suspension to think about behaving better than a spoiled child.Edited by AdminNosy, : correct the author

The problem is that the scripture is simply incorrect. Sorry, but that is a fact.First, there could be no Days until after the sun is formed. Genesis 1 places creating the sun on day four, so, sorry but days are simply not possible before that moment. The first three days exist only in the imagination of the storyteller.If you try to take the fable literally it is self-contradictory.If you want to understand Genesis 1 & 2, the first step is to admit that they are poetic and allegorical and have nothing to do with how the Universe was formed.Any attempt to pretend they describe actual events is simply mental gymnastics and folly.Understanding Genesis is important but trying to turn it into a factual history instead of a fable only assures that you will NEVER understand the actual meaning expressed.Edited by jar, : fix sub-title

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

By continuously repeating this doesn't make it so. This view is 5th century BC understanding.A 5th grader has a better grasp on science. Light is plasma? BTW what are units on your polarized vacuum charge. I am guessing that one of your 4 Pillars is not basic science.If you do not understand the basics, I suggest you refrain from particle physics speculations.I don't want to be demeaning but the above quotes are absurd and wholly inaccurate. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

Can you give me a dated reference to this source.I expect to find currently known geological facts being presented purely as a result of scripture - if that is what you are claiming? Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

Your question presupposes that there is a why.That is a very human need.Why do you think there must be a why?Other than the fact that you feel uncomfortable without one which is no reason to suppose one must exist. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

I must say this is much more constructive than the other line that this thread is taking.I have read Genesis but have not viewed the contradictory accounts in the way you describe.If it is indeed true that the contradictions were intentional and that this sort of sophisticated analysis was taking place at the time of compilation then the obvious question would seem to be - When did it all go wrong?The sort of enlightened attitudes required for this sort of analysis seems very much at odds with the history of organised religion as we genarally know it today.The utter conviction in absolutes demonstrated at the time of the crusades and inquisition demonstrates a marked change from the sophisticated attitudes you describe as being present at the time the bible was initially put together.

If, as you have done, you interpret the passgages such that they do not contradict known facts then it is hardly surprising that you can then claim that known facts do not contradict your interpretation.Your whole argument rests on an entirely circular premise.The only surprising thing is just how badly your interpretation does hold up against known fact given that it was formulated with this knowledge available to you. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

I doubt that the contradictions were originally intended. Remember these tales grew up likely as oral traditions in different cultures at different times. The contradictions only enter when all the stories are combined. Religion has always been a convenient way to manage and control the populous, but the Crusades had almost nothing to do with religion.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

At the point of combination the contradictions must have been realised and the sort of enlightened interpretation that you detailed earlier must have existed at that point. No? I was referring more to the religious establishment and it's attitudes at the time of the crusades than the crusades themselves.

Very likely. But there could be other interpretations. For example there may have been political reasons for including them, or decisions made over the positions of the individual members of the committees.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The hebrew word in genesis 1:3 light means basiscally sun light while the hebrew word for light in genesis 1:14-17 means a light like a chandelier. The reason the earth and the planets rotate as they do around the sun is due to God decorating our night sky with the stars he had made.The interpreters thought to make it easier to understand thus they added "he made" the stars also. The original text never included "he made" thus no biblical scriptural evidence that the stars were made on the 4th day. Sorry but them are the facts, the stars including the wandering stars were made in the beginning when the heaven and earth were created. kjv genesis 1:1I was always told that italized words were words added by the translators, thus unless one can prove this point wrong the Scriptures infering he made the stars on the fourth day never said "he made" but only said: stars also.kjv Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night (he made) the stars also. Edited by Charley, : No reason given.Edited by Charley, : No reason given.Edited by Charley, : No reason given.