Here's an analysis of the Genesis account of creation. I'll use the King James bible.
Chapter 1.
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
So the Earth and Heaven were created at the same time and before the stars. Hmm..that seems to contradict all current understanding of cosmology.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
This seems to say that the earth was full of water and yet 'void'. Given that a void is empty this seems self-contradictory
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
From where does the light come?
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Presumably this means he sets the earth spinning on its axis.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
So a day is measured from evening to morning? Hmm.
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
So there is a 'sky' or 'heavens' in the middle of a lot of water?
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
So now we have water under the sky and water above it. Hmm.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
Ahh...so now the firmament is heaven...but surely heaven was created 'in the beginning'?
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
So we have one ocean and one island? OK...that works.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
OK, this works...we now have land and sea.
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
So the first life on earth is grass and trees? This seems to contradict everything we know about the appearance of life (the first life was primitive bacteria which appeared in the oceans about 4 billion yrs ago).
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Nope - grasses did not appear until about 65 million years ago (well over 4 billion years after the earth was formed). Trees evolved during the Devonian period (about 350 million years ago).
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
Again this definition of a day as evening and morning. What happened to the afternoon?
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
Hang on - I thought light appeared on day 1? We are now in day 4. What's going on?
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Hmm...very odd indeed. Is this the creation of stars? Surely the Sun is a star?
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.
Ahh so this is the Sun and the Moon. But the moon is not a light - it merely reflects the light from the Sun. The seasons are determined by the Sun and the Earth's rotation/orbit but if we are only now seeing the Sun appear then how did the grasses and trees appear (since they rely on photosynthesis) ?
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
Hmm...I wonder...
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
Good? It's a ruddy miracle...
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Again with this aversion for afternoons...did God have a bad experience one afternoon?
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
So we now get sea-life and birds?
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Yep - sea life and birds all apear at once (including sea mammals). This contradicts everything we know about the appearance of life on earth...
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
So we have creatures in the oceans and birds on the land.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
Come on God...get over this afternoon problem.
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
So now we get mammals and insects?
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Yep - mammals and insects now appear. Again this contradicts everything we know about the appearance of life on earth. The earliest insect fossils we have are around 400 million years old. The earliest mammals appeared around 220 million years ago. Cattle appeared much later down the line.
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
So mankind is now to appear?
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Hang on - I thought Eve was the first woman created from Adam's rib - but surely that is later in Genesis 2? Hmm...
Now compare this with what we actually know about the evolution of life on earth:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/geo_timeline.html Contrary to popular opinion and today’s science, God created all the laws of nature and Science when He created this whole universe, today science is still trying to unravel these mysteries.
The bible said the earth was round before science even though it true, just ask Galileo?
The hydrological cycle was described in great detail in the book of Job (one of the old books of the bible); thousands of years before science even consider it possible. And so forth, even today modern science has recognized the benefits of the Jewish customs and law from the Torah as been both hygienic and very healthy.
The bible is full of explanations of things that God revealed to people, even Dinosaurs are describe in great detail in the bible (see the book of Job), about science and nature which scientist only recently have confirmed as true and if something does not make sense or contradicts science in the bible, it is not the bible that is wrong but science.
As for the theory of Evolution, it has more holes in it than a sift, for example if things progressed form net or sift, for example if things progressed from nothing to a cell to a whatever, how do you explain the eye or stomach, it either was created whole from the beginning or not.
Have a great day, which God made, and breath the fresh He also made, enjoy some water and food which are His gifts to us and just know that He is God.
| xtupie wrote: |
| The bible said the earth was round before science even though it true, just ask Galileo? |
We can't do that because he is dead. We can read the bible though.
Isaiah 11:12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH.
Does a circle have corners?
What about:
Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
How can you see the entire world from a mountain if it is a sphere..doesn't work does it?
I presume you are referring to:
Issaiah 40;22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers.
But that implies a flat circle, not a sphere.
In fact the ancient Greeks were well aware that the Earth was a sphere - they knew this about 6 centuries BCE (Pythagoras) and didn't have to rely on any bible..
| xtupie wrote: |
| The hydrological cycle was described in great detail in the book of Job (one of the old books of the bible); thousands of years before science even consider it possible. And so forth, even today modern science has recognized the benefits of the Jewish customs and law from the Torah as been both hygienic and very healthy. |
I presume you mean
Job 36;27-28 For he maketh small the drops of water: they pour down rain according to the vapour thereof: Which the clouds do drop and distil upon man abundantly.
I would hardly call that great detail - in fact it's wrong since it implies that God makes the rain in the clouds when in fact this is a result of evaporation (mainly from the oceans).
We also have:
Ecc 1:7:All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.
How does that work then? | xtupie wrote: |
| The bible is full of explanations of things that God revealed to people, even Dinosaurs are describe in great detail in the bible (see the book of Job), |
I presume you mean the description of the Behemoth in
Job 40;15-16 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
Could equally well be desribing an elephant or hippopotamus. | xtupie wrote: |
| if something does not make sense or contradicts science in the bible, it is not the bible that is wrong but science. |
Where we actually have evidence for something then it must be wrong if it isn't in the bible - obviously! ROFLMAO | xtupie wrote: |
| As for the theory of Evolution, it has more holes in it than a sift, for example if things progressed form net or sift, for example if things progressed from nothing to a cell to a whatever, how do you explain the eye or stomach, it either was created whole from the beginning or not. |
You really should read more up to date creationist propoganda. The 'eye' has been done to death and even creationists like Behe and Dembski have stopped using that example.
Here - watch a video and learn.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html
As for the stomach, it's still evolving (like everything else). Look, for example, at the evolution of lactose tolerance in humans...
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/human-evolution/dn11261-early-europeans-unable-to-stomach-milk.html
Last edited by Bikerman on Tue May 06, 2008 6:17 pm; edited 1 time in totalA do admire the optimism and tenacity in this as well as the sister post. Regrettably though, I am convinced that combatting irrational and illogical beliefs with logic, scientific method and plain common sense will, as usual, not work. Logical arguments, chains of proof and scientific fact do not leave a dent with those whose beliefs do not rely on any of these. It's Don Quixote shattering his skull in the futile attempt to attack the windmills (even if in this case, Don Quixote is the sane, rational one). Very good luck to you all the same. You will, as usual in these types of discussions, corner them in the "God moves in mysterious ways." corner ... a TKO for those who agreed with you from the beginning and an "undecided" for the others.
Yes, I know what you are saying Max. I normally leave the 'plain religious' postings alone but when they make references to science then I just can't sit back and let it pass.
I don't expect to make any 'converts' but you never know 
This topic is pointless, and if the earth were a circle instead of a sphere we'd still be able to fall off, e.g. the bird in my avatar... | Bikerman wrote: |
| Does a circle have corners? |
Nice job. | Quote: |
| Quran [79:30] He made the earth egg-shaped. |
? | Quote: |
| Quran [79:30] He made the earth egg-shaped. |
So the Quran is wrong as well.
Firstly you are taking a rather selective translation of the Sura.
It actually says Wal'arda ba'da dhalika dahaha which has been traditionally interpreted as 'and afterwards he spread the earth'. The translation to mean 'egg shaped' is a relatively recent one made by Khalifa who many Muslims regard with suspicion.
http://www.islamawakened.com/Quran/79/30/default.htm
However, even if we accept this dodgy 'new' translation from Khalifa, then it is still wrong. The egg is a prolate spheroid (more or less). The earth is very close to a sphere but if you want to be technical it is an oblate spheroid (nothing like 'egg-shaped').The word dahaha is derived from dahhyah which means "egg."
At that time, people did not fully understand the meaning of this verse. Well, imagine trying to tell nomads 1400 years ago that you are not on the North Pole but on the SIDE of the Earth, and that people are standing on the other end! And an invisible force called gravity pulls things towards it which lets us stand on it, even on the side!
To us, true. To them, outrageous.
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| The word dahaha is derived from dahhyah which means "egg." |
Actually it means 'Ostrich Egg spread in the sand' - which is why most respectable Muslim scholars translate the Sura as 'spreading the Earth'. Why not check the reference I gave (it is on a pro-Islamic website and contains all the possible translations, and you can also check-out the translators since it has a brief biography for each).Chris,
I liked reading your post even where I think we totally disagree (I am a christian so even if I can't prove anything at all in Genesis is right I still believe it. Maybe you could compare it to someone who always believes his favourite footballclub will win in the end even if they have lost match after match 
It's not believing because it's provable, it's believing just out of love). I can't react on all that you are writing but I will try to react on some of your analyses.
Note: one could write a book about Genesis 1. In fact, there are written lots of books on Genesis 1. So my reaction will be far from complete.
| Quote: |
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
So the Earth and Heaven were created at the same time and before the stars. Hmm..that seems to contradict all current understanding of cosmology. |
Genesis 1 starts with a short summary of what is to come: everything that exists is created by God. You could say it's like the title of a capital.
Heaven: the place where God lives, His house. Confusing: heaven can also mean 'sky', the place where the clouds are. But here it is used as the opposite of the earth. Earth is the home of humankind, heaven the home of God.
| Quote: |
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
This seems to say that the earth was full of water and yet 'void'. Given that a void is empty this seems self-contradictory |
You are right, it seems self-contradictory. But it's a poem. The earth is empty, there is nothing except water. Darkness, chaos. There was water, but the main function of the earth, being a home to all the living beings, was still impossible. Without light and without dry land life is very difficult. So void means: it was unusable, worthless as long as there was only water.
| Quote: |
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
From where does the light come? |
I don't know, guess God created it by saing so
But seriously, it's the description of how God created everything, the whole universe, just out of nothing. So the question where 'it came from' will always lead to the answer: from nowhere, because there was (almost) nothing, beside of God.
| Quote: |
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Presumably this means he sets the earth spinning on its axis. |
Could be. I think it has something to do with God putting everthing in its proper place, but I can't prove that. You could be right.
| Quote: |
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
So a day is measured from evening to morning? Hmm. |
King James isn't very clear in this one. The hebrew original says: 'There was evening - there was morning - first day'. (I don't know if you can read Hebrew. If you like to see the hebrew text with English words look at the blueletterbible.com and click on the little 'C'-icon at the left of the text). This is mostly regarded as: 'There had been an evening and now the next morning had come, the first day had ended.' (Jews count days from sunrise till sunset, so the night is not counted as part of the day)
| Quote: |
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
So there is a 'sky' or 'heavens' in the middle of a lot of water?
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
So now we have water under the sky and water above it. Hmm. |
I think this is the same as with the light-issue: a description of God giving everything it's place. So at first there was earth, but everywhere there was water. And now God takes some of this water and moulds it into clouds (the waters ' above' or ' in' the sky. A lot of people look at the clouds and say: 'those are in the sky') and He takes the rest of the water and makes that into a calm ocean.
I hope I have understand your questions the right way. I hope you enjoy my answer (I don't think you will fully agree with it 
but hey, than we have something to talk about, don't we?). I'm sorry I didn't write a comment to your whole Genesis-analyses, but I simply don't have time enough for that. Have to sleep now.
Yours,
JohanFH | johanfh wrote: |
| Quote: | 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
So the Earth and Heaven were created at the same time and before the stars. Hmm..that seems to contradict all current understanding of cosmology. |
Genesis 1 starts with a short summary of what is to come: everything that exists is created by God. You could say it's like the title of a capital.
Heaven: the place where God lives, His house. Confusing: heaven can also mean 'sky', the place where the clouds are. But here it is used as the opposite of the earth. Earth is the home of humankind, heaven the home of God. |
OK so we have heaven and earth (no stars, sun, planets etc)..I understand. It doesn't really work though, does it? The Sun clearly came before the Earth...
| Quote: |
| Quote: | 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
This seems to say that the earth was full of water and yet 'void'. Given that a void is empty this seems self-contradictory |
You are right, it seems self-contradictory. But it's a poem. The earth is empty, there is nothing except water. Darkness, chaos. There was water, but the main function of the earth, being a home to all the living beings, was still impossible. Without light and without dry land life is very difficult. So void means: it was unusable, worthless as long as there was only water. |
So the earth was covered in water? OK. Again this is contradicted by theory - in fact it is the opposite to current theory since we think the earth had little or no water at formation (it was, for one thing, too hot).
| Quote: |
| Quote: | 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
From where does the light come? |
I don't know, guess God created it by saing so
But seriously, it's the description of how God created everything, the whole universe, just out of nothing. So the question where 'it came from' will always lead to the answer: from nowhere, because there was (almost) nothing, beside of God. |
So this means there was some light other than the sun and stars? Does this light get turned-off later when the sun pops up? | Quote: |
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. | Quote: | 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
So a day is measured from evening to morning? Hmm. |
King James isn't very clear in this one. The hebrew original says: 'There was evening - there was morning - first day'. (I don't know if you can read Hebrew. If you like to see the hebrew text with English words look at the blueletterbible.com and click on the little 'C'-icon at the left of the text). This is mostly regarded as: 'There had been an evening and now the next morning had come, the first day had ended.' (Jews count days from sunrise till sunset, so the night is not counted as part of the day) |
No I can't read Hebrew but the afternoon seems to get left out consistently. This could be a semantic/translation issue, I grant. | Quote: |
| Quote: | 6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
So there is a 'sky' or 'heavens' in the middle of a lot of water?
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
So now we have water under the sky and water above it. Hmm. |
I think this is the same as with the light-issue: a description of God giving everything it's place. So at first there was earth, but everywhere there was water. And now God takes some of this water and moulds it into clouds (the waters ' above' or ' in' the sky. A lot of people look at the clouds and say: 'those are in the sky') and He takes the rest of the water and makes that into a calm ocean. |
Hmm...the volumes don't add-up - there would be a lot of left-over water. I presume, being God, he could just 'vanish' it?
I enjoyed your response and I hope I took it in the spirit intended | Bikerman wrote: |
| johanfh wrote: | | Quote: | 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
So the Earth and Heaven were created at the same time and before the stars. Hmm..that seems to contradict all current understanding of cosmology. |
Genesis 1 starts with a short summary of what is to come: everything that exists is created by God. You could say it's like the title of a capital.
Heaven: the place where God lives, His house. Confusing: heaven can also mean 'sky', the place where the clouds are. But here it is used as the opposite of the earth. Earth is the home of humankind, heaven the home of God. |
OK so we have heaven and earth (no stars, sun, planets etc)..I understand. It doesn't really work though, does it? The Sun clearly came before the Earth...
| Quote: | | Quote: | 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
This seems to say that the earth was full of water and yet 'void'. Given that a void is empty this seems self-contradictory |
You are right, it seems self-contradictory. But it's a poem. The earth is empty, there is nothing except water. Darkness, chaos. There was water, but the main function of the earth, being a home to all the living beings, was still impossible. Without light and without dry land life is very difficult. So void means: it was unusable, worthless as long as there was only water. |
So the earth was covered in water? OK. Again this is contradicted by theory - in fact it is the opposite to current theory since we think the earth had little or no water at formation (it was, for one thing, too hot).
| Quote: | | Quote: | 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
From where does the light come? |
I don't know, guess God created it by saing so
But seriously, it's the description of how God created everything, the whole universe, just out of nothing. So the question where 'it came from' will always lead to the answer: from nowhere, because there was (almost) nothing, beside of God. |
So this means there was some light other than the sun and stars? Does this light get turned-off later when the sun pops up? |
Actually i always found this stuff fascinating. First off, ignore the idiotic claim that this myth is in any way representative of reality. This is a bit of Egyptian folklore that the early Jews picked up and plagiarized shamelessly, nothing more, nothing less. But once you accept that and give up trying to haphazardly reinterpret it to try and make it reasonably in line with reality, it does give you a really neat world view.
In the Bible, the Earth is flat, and fixed - several verses say this explicitly, many more hint at it implicitly. The heavens are not the stars, the heavens are a place "above" the stars. So you have the flat plane of Earth, and above that, the heavens, and each has water and "land".
In the beginning, only the heavens were formed into land and water, and the Earth was just a pile of junk in heaven's basement, without form. Basically, God made heaven first, and shaped it up nicely before turning his attention to Earth. All of that would have been Genesis 1:1.
Then God, finished with the heavens, turned his attention to Earth, which was basically a big pile of waterlogged rocks. God "fixed" the base of all that to a... something. ^_^; It's turtles all the way down, but you get the idea. That was Genesis 1:2. The "waters" God moves on are the waters of the heavens and Earth, which are still all connected.
Then he introduced illumination. No source is mentioned, but it's the light that lights heaven, so it's not the Sun or stars. This is Genesis 1:3. Making light and dark separate occupies the next couple of verses.
And then comes the best part. ^_^ God introduces "the firmament", which is a layer of... something... that separates the heavens and Earth. The Earth is a flat pile of rocky water at this point, and above this is the dome of "the firmament", and above that is the waters and lands of the heavens. If you travel up high enough, you will puncture the firmament and get to heaven (and this is a repeating theme, such as in Babel).
Then he goes about separating the rocky water into land and sea and so on, but personally, i've always found this firmament idea very amazingly cool. It is unfortunate that people take this mythology so damned seriously - and try so hard to argue that it's reality - because from an aesthetic point of view, it's a really neat and imaginative story.Indeed, if we read Genesis and try to derive a scientific explanation as to how everything happened, we will be sorely disappointed. Let us consider two things:
1: Is this the point of the Bible? Will my life be any easier today if I understand what happened then?
If the point of the bible were to let us understand the intricate inner workings of the universe it would be a very long, dry, uninspiring book and it would leave us with nothing to ponder. Many people would be out of jobs and much beloved mystery would be lost. Humans love mystery and discovery. I am sure that this is not the point of Genesis. So what IS the point? perhaps we are to understand something about ourselves through these teachings; which brings me to point #2....
2: what is really being said here? This is a book written by, presumably, Moses. So let us resort to Rabbinic Judaism, not simple Judaism or Christianity.
Rabbinic Judaism would refer us to Adam Kadmon. Neither male nor female, Adam Kadmon is the soul which contains ALL souls (Genesis 1:27 - in the image of God he created him ["it" sounds bad, so the word "him" is used here and for every other genderless pronoun]; male AND female he created them.)
From here, I am cloudy and constantly praying for understanding, but one thing sticks out... it is said that God caused Adam to fall into a deep sleep, and from his rib was Eve created... however there is NO MENTION of Adam Waking up. I believe that we are essentially the dispersed divided souls who are collectively the sleeping Adam Kadmon. Jesus was the First to awake. The first to see that He existed in every living thing. He was not the first to realize that we were sleeping, as I believe that is what enlightenment is, and there were many before Jesus who reached enlightenment. We will all awake, we will combine again into the One Holy Son of God.
Another potentially useful tidbit; the word "was" in Hebrew as used in the following "in the beginning there was nothing" is a word that could as easily be translated to mean "became" so the other translation would be "in the beginning there BECAME nothing," is plausible.
Cheers! God Bless!
| stacygoode wrote: |
| From here, I am cloudy and constantly praying for understanding, but one thing sticks out... it is said that God caused Adam to fall into a deep sleep, and from his rib was Eve created... however there is NO MENTION of Adam Waking up. |
Well, that's a very strange interpretation and a semantic quibble. The fact that Adam woke up is implicit in the text;
| Quote: |
| So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs [i] and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib [j] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. |
Note - 'while he was sleeping' - in other words Adam slept whilst the rib was removed. Implicitly he woke afterwards, or why phrase it that way?
It also doesn't stack-up when you go on to read the rest of Genesis. Adam is clearly 'awake' since he and Eve continue their life in Eden.
The idea that Adam sleeping is a metaphor for being un-enlightened strikes me as completely unsustainable. | stacygoode wrote: |
| Another potentially useful tidbit; the word "was" in Hebrew as used in the following "in the beginning there was nothing" is a word that could as easily be translated to mean "became" so the other translation would be "in the beginning there BECAME nothing," is plausible |
Err...where does it say 'in the beginning there was nothing'? Nowhere in the bible that I know...did you invent it? | stacygoode wrote: |
| Indeed, if we read Genesis and try to derive a scientific explanation as to how everything happened, we will be sorely disappointed. |
The point is that Genesis gives us a fairly detailed account of creation. Much of it we can test against observable reality and it turns out that the account is simply wrong.
Presuming Moses did write Genesis (and there is no evidence that he did - or even that he existed) then why would the account be wrong, if we are to assume that God gave the account to Moses?
The answer is that, as Indi has pointed out, the account is a rehash of earlier beliefs - particularly Egyptian myth.
The point is not that the account leaves out things and doesn't give a complete scientific explanation, the point is that the explanation that IS given is not correct - it is a creation myth, not a real account. | stacygoode wrote: |
1: Is this the point of the Bible? Will my life be any easier today if I understand what happened then?
If the point of the bible were to let us understand the intricate inner workings of the universe it would be a very long, dry, uninspiring book and it would leave us with nothing to ponder. Many people would be out of jobs and much beloved mystery would be lost. Humans love mystery and discovery. I am sure that this is not the point of Genesis. So what IS the point? perhaps we are to understand something about ourselves through these teachings; which brings me to point #2.... |
What is the point of the Bible? Alright, i am happy to agree with you that it was not intended to be a science text - it does such a piss-poor job of that, i can't argue. But then, what is the point?
Correct me if i'm wrong... but isn't the point of the Bible to inform us - humanity - about the existence, nature and desires of God? It's supposed to tell us that God exists, what he is like, and what he wants us to do... right? And, for bonus points, it might also provide evidence for his existence, for his characteristics, and tell us why he wants us to do what he wants us to do... but it doesn't have to do those things. All that it has to do is give us the basics: God exists, he's like this, and this is what he wants from you.
If that is the point of the Bible, then there should be nothing in the Bible that serves any other purpose but to serve those goals. Otherwise... basically... "the word of God" would be full of meaningless filler.
Now, i'm not going to debate right now whether that is the case or not. i'm just going to focus on Genesis 1. How does the creation story serve the supposed goal of the Bible? Well, if it's true, it does tell is quite a bit about who God is, how he works, and why he wants us to follow his word.
But....
If it's false... what purpose does it serve?
In fact, if it's false... it does nothing to help out the goals of the Bible... and only serves to create confusion and chaos (for example, the modern creation/evolution "debate").
And let's not mince words... if the story is not literally true, it is a lie. A bald-faced, flat-out, no-holds-barred lie. It's no metaphor or parable - because it doesn't say it is (Jesus stated clearly that he spoke in parables, Moses did not). It presents itself as God's honest truth, and never deviates from that impression. If it weren't for science, we'd never have any reason to question it. And, in fact, in the thousands of years between Moses and Jesus, God never felt the urge to tell any prophet, "Oh yeah, by the way, that first part? Metaphor."
But let's allow for a moment that it is a metaphor. What purpose does it serve? How does it help the goal? How does such a silly story help the case for God, or why i should obey him? Frankly, it doesn't. You can cut it right out and the fundamental message of the Bible wouldn't change. It serves no purpose as a metaphor. So - again - either God put meaningless fluff in his message to humanity to confuse the hell out of us... or he means for it to be taken seriously, in which case it's not meant as metaphor.
So it is either true or it is a lie. This is the dilemma modern Christians face. Some - refusing to call God a liar - insist that it is true. Others - attempting to straddle the fence - try back-breakingly hard to "interpret" the Genesis account in a way that makes sense with science. It's really rather pathetic to watch, because invariably these people don't understand the science as well as they understand the Bible and end up making fools of themselves. Here's the fact... it doesn't match. It simply doesn't. And replacing "days" with "ages" does not fix it. The sequence is wrong, the steps and descriptions are nonsensical... it just don't work.
So, there's the line. Either the Genesis account is true, or the word of God has lies in it. And you can try to dance along the line without committing to either side of it... but you're only going to end up looking like a fool.
You know where i stand. i'm not big on Biblical obscurity. My position is clear. The Genesis account is a lie. What's your position? | Bikerman wrote: |
| stacygoode wrote: | | Another potentially useful tidbit; the word "was" in Hebrew as used in the following "in the beginning there was nothing" is a word that could as easily be translated to mean "became" so the other translation would be "in the beginning there BECAME nothing," is plausible |
Err...where does it say 'in the beginning there was nothing'? Nowhere in the bible that I know...did you invent it? |
sorry, my bad...
"In the beginning the Earth was formless" could be translated to say, "in the beginning the Earth became formless."
Thank you for keeping me straight. The I deas I'm proposing are not meant to attack, but rather I would like to see people reading as though they never heard of the book before. Read it as though you're the first one to read it. Feel free to think while you're reading it. God did not intend for us to think the way we are told to think, but rather just to think and be faithful to Him. I am not questioning the Almighty, I am only trying to understand.
I am not in any way saying that Genesis is a mataphore. I am saying that what we believe to be reality is nowhere close to the reality of God. My physical body is not ME, it is MINE. When it dies, I will continue to be. As Christ lives in me, I live in Him. As Christ lives in you, then, logically, I must also live in you. That is no metaphore, unless you think Jesus was just trying to make a point, then we ARE ONE in the body of Christ. I take Genesis and the entire Bible very literlally.
God bless you all, and thanks again, bikerman, for the correction. | stacygoode wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | stacygoode wrote: | | Another potentially useful tidbit; the word "was" in Hebrew as used in the following "in the beginning there was nothing" is a word that could as easily be translated to mean "became" so the other translation would be "in the beginning there BECAME nothing," is plausible |
Err...where does it say 'in the beginning there was nothing'? Nowhere in the bible that I know...did you invent it? |
sorry, my bad...
"In the beginning the Earth was formless" could be translated to say, "in the beginning the Earth became formless." |
Again you are misquoting.
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep."
In other words the earth did not 'become' formless. To become formless would imply that it previously had form - it didn't. It was created and its created state was without 'form'.
| Quote: |
| I am not in any way saying that Genesis is a mataphore. I am saying that what we believe to be reality is nowhere close to the reality of God. |
If it is not a metaphor then it must be literal. If it is literal then it is in error. You can't have it both ways. It contains a sequence and a timescale which DID NOT HAPPEN according to modern science.
| Quote: |
| My physical body is not ME, it is MINE. When it dies, I will continue to be. As Christ lives in me, I live in Him. As Christ lives in you, then, logically, I must also live in you. That is no metaphore, unless you think Jesus was just trying to make a point, then we ARE ONE in the body of Christ. I take Genesis and the entire Bible very literlally. |
What has Jesus got to do with Genesis? Genesis was written many centuries before Jesus appeared on the scene.
If you take the Genesis account literally then- You need to read it a bit more carefully so that you know what you believe
- You are a creationist and, presumably, reject much of modern science - things like evolutionary biology, cosmology, palaeontology, genetic biology, particle physics, geology and archaeology. Non of those disciplines can fit into a world where the genesis account is literal - it can't be done.
Chris,
(If intend to quote verbatum, I do it like this...)
Gen1:1-2 - "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the earth. Now the Earth was formless and empty."
I am reading from the new internation version of the Bible (NIV). 100 multilingual biblical scholars came together to agree on this translation and they offered up that it may be "was" or "became".
I think that what ever wiped life off the earth billions of years ago pretty much left the earth with out form. That is, a blank slate.
I am only trying to share my thoughts here don't let it upset you. If you don't believe, that's your choice. My intention is to show people they have the right to think for themselves. It is not black or white. But above all, I intend to show people that you don't have put your brain in the trash-can to believe in God.
I think that Genesis is meant to account for the beginning of the dream in which we are each characters.
I think Darwin pinned it when he said that his theories were flawed, because they could not account for the existence of the eye. How could seeing evolve from not seeing?
I believe in evolution because I have witnessed it, but I don't believe that we all stem from the same single-celled organism.
I believe that if we came from something it would be because the thing we came from could not survive the way it was, but there are still monkeys around, so out goes survival of the fittest. There are many flaws in the theory of evolution.
I believe that there were dinasours and then the Earth became formless.
I believe that noone knows what actually happened.
I don't believe that squabling ever got anyone anywhere that they wanted to be.
I think Jesus has everything to do with Genesis. He was nearly stoned for saying "before Abraham was born, I Am" (john 8:58) He was saying that He was one with God and created the Earth. He was saying that he has always been in everyone and even before everyone.
Anyway... I love discussing this, but hate arguing about it. I would like to hear your account. Are/were you Jewish? Christian? Agnostic? I can't figure it out.
God bless.
| stacygoode wrote: |
Chris,
(If intend to quote verbatum, I do it like this...)
Gen1:1-2 - "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the earth. Now the Earth was formless and empty." |
Well, the correct way is to use quote tags, but since the bible is non-copyright that method seems OK to me..
| Quote: |
| I am reading from the new internation version of the Bible (NIV). 100 multilingual biblical scholars came together to agree on this translation and they offered up that it may be "was" or "became". |
Well, we can use that version if you like (I was using KJV).
The scholars you refer to use the word 'was' and not the word 'became'. That is the consensus, which should tell you something. It is also the translation used in just about every other version of the bible, which should also tell you something...
Why not consider the original yourself:
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/9_genesis.html
| Quote: |
| I think that what ever wiped life off the earth billions of years ago pretty much left the earth with out form. That is, a blank slate. |
So you think that there was life on Earth billions of years ago and then that life was wiped-out? Where does that notion come from? It is certainly not consistent with either the Bible or science....
| Quote: |
| I am only trying to share my thoughts here don't let it upset you. If you don't believe, that's your choice. My intention is to show people they have the right to think for themselves. It is not black or white. But above all, I intend to show people that you don't have put your brain in the trash-can to believe in God. |
I am not upset - this is my normal debating style.
| Quote: |
| I think that Genesis is meant to account for the beginning of the dream in which we are each characters. |
And what do you base this on? You say that you take the bible literally and yet there is no suggestion that life is a 'dream' in Genesis...
| Quote: |
| I think Darwin pinned it when he said that his theories were flawed, because they could not account for the existence of the eye. How could seeing evolve from not seeing? |
I thought you said you wanted people to use their brains? You now repeat one of the most brainless, dishonest statements that creationists constantly use. This has been done to death many times on these forums. Darwin NEVER SAID that his theory could not account for the eye. This is a LIE which creationists use all the time. Darwin proposed a rhetorical question AND THEN HE ANSWERED IT.
Why not read exactly what he said, rather than the selected, edited, dishonest version that creationists use:
| DARWIN wrote: |
| To suppose that the eye [...] could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. |
That's a little different to your version is it not?
| Quote: |
| I believe in evolution because I have witnessed it, but I don't believe that we all stem from the same single-celled organism. |
Well you have not read enough.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html
| Quote: |
| I believe that if we came from something it would be because the thing we came from could not survive the way it was, but there are still monkeys around, so out goes survival of the fittest. There are many flaws in the theory of evolution. |
LOL...now we have brainless assertion number 2 in the creationist dogma. There are no significant flaws in the theory. You need to read properly and not selectively (see above link).
Individual members of a species undergo genetic mutation and either pass on those mutations to their offspring if it is beneficial, or don't if it is not (ie they either die or do not breed). Thus a species diverges, with the non-mutated individuals continuing to reproduce and the mutated individuals passing on the mutation to the new sub-group. It is really very simple (and beautiful).
| Quote: |
| I believe that there were dinasours and then the Earth became formless. |
There was life LONG before the dinosaurs. The dinosaurs did NOT die out completely, they evolved like everything else - consider reptilian forms today and consider birds. Neither did all life die-out when the comet struck earth about 65 million years ago. About 70% of species became extinct but the rest carried on evolving...
| Quote: |
| I believe that noone knows what actually happened. |
Well the fossil record is pretty good. We also have other evidence - the iridium boundary etc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous%E2%80%93Tertiary_extinction_event
| Quote: |
| I don't believe that squabling ever got anyone anywhere that they wanted to be. |
There is a difference between squabbling and reasoned debate. I do the latter...
| Quote: |
I think Jesus has everything to do with Genesis. He was nearly stoned for saying "before Abraham was born, I Am" (john 8:5 He was saying that He was one with God and created the Earth. He was saying that he has always been in everyone and even before everyone. |
Yes, that is a standard Christian interpretation. It leads to a logical absurdity which is 'resolved' by the notion of a trinity - an explanation which I personally find rather silly.
| Quote: |
| Anyway... I love discussing this, but hate arguing about it. I would like to hear your account. Are/were you Jewish? Christian? Agnostic? I can't figure it out. |
Argument is essential in discussion, otherwise you simply have agreement and what is the point of that?
I was raised Catholic and am now atheist.I must ask you why you spend so much time and energy talking about something you don't believe in. May I suggest that deep down you want someone to convince you that there is hope beyond yourself. The other option is that misery loves company, in which case you are wasting your time and mine too I fear. This may be a rhetorical question. Your choice.
I was not aware of Darwins seniment of retraction. Yet do I find many things subversive to his theory, including his own rhetorical statement, as it may be, about the unlikelyhood of the eye. I freely admit that I am not well versed in evolutionism, and I am not trying to argue that the Earth is only 6000 years old. I don't find myself particularly interested in knowing EXACTLY how we got here, rather I like to concentrate on how we get out of here.
The fundamantal difference between spirituality and religion is that religion prorposes we look forward to heaven, while spirituality focuses on backing out of hell. That is what I care about. I did not go to the science forum. I came to the religious/philisophical forum. I don't understand why you chose this forum when you seem more interested in scientific study. You cannot save me from God, you don't even believe He exists. I am not interested in scientifically proving that God exists, God would not have me try.
Arguing assumes that you know you are right, discussing assumes that we are really listening to each other and willing to change our minds if we are shown to be wrong. I cannot be moved ot not believe in God, but I am very willing to reconcinder some of my concepts about Him. I can't prove His existance with words, if you want proof of God, ask God. I have faith because God speaks to me. I have faith because I know that I know, not because someone else convinced me to believe.
I know how your battle ends. You win. Not because you beat anyone else, but because you will not die. The only choice you can make is to let go of this world, or to hold on to it.
God bless you, brother.
| stacygoode wrote: |
| I must ask you why you spend so much time and energy talking about something you don't believe in. May I suggest that deep down you want someone to convince you that there is hope beyond yourself. The other option is that misery loves company, in which case you are wasting your time and mine too I fear. This may be a rhetorical question. Your choice. |
I debate because this is a debating forum. If you only talk about what you believe then your horizons are narrowed. If you can convince me then fine - I doubt it but you are welcome to try.
| Quote: |
| I was not aware of Darwins seniment of retraction. |
More dishonesty. Darwin did NOT retract - the words above were his words, not a retraction of a previous position. You see what you are doing? making dishonest statements - first about what Darwin said and now about why he said it. This is no way to behave in a debate and it is the reason that creationists are often perceived as dishonest.
| Quote: |
| Yet do I find many things subversive to his theory, including his own rhetorical statement, as it may be, about the unlikelyhood of the eye. I freely admit that I am not well versed in evolutionism, and I am not trying to argue that the Earth is only 6000 years old. I don't find myself particularly interested in knowing EXACTLY how we got here, rather I like to concentrate on how we get out of here. |
Err..the thread is about Genesis - which is an account of how we got here. If you are not interested in this then what exactly is your point?
| Quote: |
| The fundamantal difference between spirituality and religion is that religion prorposes we look forward to heaven, while spirituality focuses on backing out of hell. |
What! That is complete nonsense. Are you making this up as you go along?
| Quote: |
| That is what I care about. I did not go to the science forum. I came to the religious/philisophical forum. I don't understand why you chose this forum when you seem more interested in scientific study. You cannot save me from God, you don't even believe He exists. I am not interested in scientifically proving that God exists, God would not have me try. |
I post in the science forum as well. When I discuss religion I do it here .. no contradiction. Discussing Genesis is a religious discussion, which does not mean we have to leave science out of it.
| Quote: |
| Arguing assumes that you know you are right, discussing assumes that we are really listening to each other and willing to change our minds if we are shown to be wrong. I cannot be moved ot not believe in God, but I am very willing to reconcinder some of my concepts about Him. |
Do you not see any contradiction in those 2 sentences? You are also incorrect. Argument is simply a discussion where there is a disagreement. I don't claim to know I am right - that would require faith. I examine the evidence and reach a conclusion. If more evidence comes to light then my conclusion might change - that is how we reason.
| Quote: |
| I can't prove His existance with words, if you want proof of God, ask God. I have faith because God speaks to me. I have faith because I know that I know, not because someone else convinced me to believe. |
Words are all we have in these forums..
| Quote: |
| I know how your battle ends. You win. Not because you beat anyone else, but because you will not die. The only choice you can make is to let go of this world, or to hold on to it. |
I don't understand that at all... | stacygoode wrote: |
| I am not in any way saying that Genesis is a mataphore. I am saying that what we believe to be reality is nowhere close to the reality of God. [...] I take Genesis and the entire Bible very literlally. |
Does that mean that you believe that the world we see all around us is a fiction? That nothing we think we understand about the physical universe is true?
Because i can't see any other way to make sense out of those statements. If the Genesis account is not a metaphor, then science is all wrong. That's what most Jewish/Christian/Islamic extremists believe. But then you go a step further and say that "what we believe to be reality" is not real reality. Doesn't that mean that God is tricking all of us with a fake reality? In other words... a big lie?[temporary presence]
I think what stacygoode means is we are in one dimension and God is in one dimension. ?
[/temporary presence]
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
[temporary presence]
I think what stacygoode means is we are in one dimension and God is in one dimension. ?
[/temporary presence] |
exactly, and what is temporary is not eternal, thus does not fit with the reality of God, thus is not real. | HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
[temporary presence]
I think what stacygoode means is we are in one dimension and God is in one dimension. ?
[/temporary presence] |
If that is what he or she means, then he or she has said a whole lot of nothing. Genesis remains either a lie, or literally true. You can't have it both ways. | Indi wrote: |
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: | [temporary presence]
I think what stacygoode means is we are in one dimension and God is in one dimension. ?
[/temporary presence] |
If that is what he or she means, then he or she has said a whole lot of nothing. Genesis remains either a lie, or literally true. You can't have it both ways. |
Indy, can you visualize the audience at that time, centuries of centuries of centuries ago for whom the Bible was written (gradually chapter by chapter). They could not read. They could not write. So whoever did the writing had to do it in a way that they could understand. I cannot imagine them being able to digest heavy scientific facts, but if they had been intellectually evolved as you are now, then perhaps Genesis would have been written differently. I do not think the message is supposed to be in the literal meaning of words.Well, nobody is asking for scientific facts. I do not expect the bible to give a detailed description of genetics or palaeontology. What I do expect is a simple statement of what happened.
When Genesis says first event A happened and took time X, then event B happened and took time Y, then event C happened and took time Z then it is not unreasonable to think that might be true.
When science tells us that not only is the order of events wrong but the times are massively different, then there is a problem.
It is not a case of things like the Genesis account being incomplete or lacking detail. It is a case of them being totally, utterly, completely, ridiculously wrong.
Now that is fine if you want to treat such passages as parables or metaphors, but when people insist that they are literal truth then I have a problem with that.
| Bikerman wrote: |
Well, nobody is asking for scientific facts. I do not expect the bible to give a detailed description of genetics or palaeontology. What I do expect is a simple statement of what happened.
When Genesis says first event A happened and took time X, then event B happened and took time Y, then event C happened and took time Z then it is not unreasonable to think that might be true.
When science tells us that not only is the order of events wrong but the times are massively different, then there is a problem.
It is not a case of things like the Genesis account being incomplete or lacking detail. It is a case of them being totally, utterly, completely, ridiculously wrong.
Now that is fine if you want to treat such passages as parables or metaphors, but when people insist that they are literal truth then I have a problem with that. |
The Bible is quite old, and if the sequence of creation was wrong by scientific criteria of our present century, it does not take anything away or make anything a lie. Possibly that chapter needs to be updated? | deanhills wrote: |
| The Bible is quite old, and if the sequence of creation was wrong by scientific criteria of our present century, it does not take anything away or make anything a lie. Possibly that chapter needs to be updated? |
Err...why would the sequence or the timescale have anything to do with the age of the Bible? - that makes no sense. The bible is supposedly the word of God - divinely inspired truth. Are you suggesting it was right at the time but the sequence has since changed? 2500-odd years ago it was still wrong - it was still a lie. 2500-odd years ago it was still true that the Earth was NOT created before the Sun. 2500-odd years ago it was still true that trees did NOT appear before marine life. 2500-odd years ago it was still true that vegetation did NOT appear before the Sun did....and so on.
We also have to consider that the account is not even self-consistent (never mind about scientific accuracy).
Consider:
Genesis 1:25-27 First plants are created, followed by animals, then man and woman.
Genesis 2:18-22 Adam is created, followed by animals, and then Eve.
Huh?? Which order was it?
Genesis 10:5 By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.
Genesis 11:1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.
Huh?? One language or many?
Adam and Eve are the first humans. They beget Cain and Abel. Abel is killed by Cain.
Genesis 4:14 Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.
Huh?? Who will kill him?
Genesis 4:17 Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch.
Huh?? Where did she come from then?
and so on (there are many more contradictions - try reading Genesis 8 with a straight face).
PS - this is not a new issue that suddenly arose with the advance of science over the last couple of centuries. The issue has been a contentious one for much longer than that.
Consider the following quote from Augustine in the 5th century CE.
| Augustine wrote: |
| 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. |
| deanhills wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | HalfBloodPrince wrote: | [temporary presence]
I think what stacygoode means is we are in one dimension and God is in one dimension. ?
[/temporary presence] |
If that is what he or she means, then he or she has said a whole lot of nothing. Genesis remains either a lie, or literally true. You can't have it both ways. |
Indy, can you visualize the audience at that time, centuries of centuries of centuries ago for whom the Bible was written (gradually chapter by chapter). They could not read. They could not write. So whoever did the writing had to do it in a way that they could understand. I cannot imagine them being able to digest heavy scientific facts, but if they had been intellectually evolved as you are now, then perhaps Genesis would have been written differently. I do not think the message is supposed to be in the literal meaning of words. |
There are many, many things wrong with all that.
First... you seriously underestimate the "audience at the time". They may not have been scientifically literate, but they were not dribbling idiots. They had enough intellectual awareness to have a language, after all. Yes, they had no written language (at first), but they had a complete oral language.
The text as is is vague and meandering... and wrong. Why can't it be vague and meandering... and right? Look, i'll show you. i'll write a better opening to Genesis than God: "In the beginning, there was nothing, not even time, then God said be, and everything began, spreading out from a point like ripples on a pond. After a great length of time, the fires of creation cooled, and separated into earth and sky. And God saw that it was growing dark, so he created the stars. Then, some time later, he gathered land together into balls and set them in motion around the stars. And one ball he named Earth. And on Earth he created land and water... etc..." Vague, meandering... but right! Why couldn't God do that?
There's no need for heavy scientific facts... just don't be plain wrong. That's not hard to do.
Genesis is plain wrong. This is not a matter of not having heavy scientific facts wrong. It's completely, through and through, plain wrong. There's nothing about it that's right! You can't squint and say it's "close enough" or it's "metaphorically correct". It's wrong.
Unless... you want to reject what we know of science.
Those are your only two options.I feel that we neglect the alternate translation of "in the beginning...the earth became formless." For me this provides a completely different timeline that I find acceptable. That "was" was used instead, even after the alternative was presented, only tells me that the translators didnt want to offend. I think that science is continually proving itself incorrect, and if we just wait, it will catch up with what we were given by the Tora thousands of years ago. Again, there are only two options, the Bible is divinely inspired, or it is a bag of lies, but I don't feel we (those who don't speak Hebrew) have been given a propper option in the first place. Just something to consider. I am still learning, but God's Word has been faithful to me, so will I be to God's Word.
God bless you all! I praise God that people are thinking about Him, and striving to understand.
Stacy
Again you ignore that facts because they contradict your 'feelings'.
The translations of the bible all agree on the word 'was' because it is the most appropriate translation. Whether you find it unacceptible or not is not really an issue. The idea that all the different translators of the bible 'did not want to offend' is silly. Who would they be offending? Surely they would be more likely to use a translation that was closer to the truth if such a translation were possible?
It is not really important anyway since even using the word 'became' does not change anything. It would imply that all life was destroyed on Earth and then a new creation was put in place. That didn't happen, as we know.
The idea that science is constantly proving itself wrong is also silly. Science grows by incorporating new observations into existing theories and, where necessary, changing theories to fit new observations. It certainly TRIES to prove hypothesese wrong - that is how science functions. Those hypothesese which are proved wrong are ditched and we end up with the ones that stand the test of time. I bet you can't give me one example of a proper scientific theory that has been proved wrong in the last century...go on, try. You have already said that you don't really understand evolution and other scientific accounts - so why do you now feel qualified to make statements about what science says and where it is headed?
The idea that science will somehow converge on the Genesis account is just daft - it won't, ever. We already know that the earth was formed about 4.5 billion years ago AFTER the sun. We may learn more about the precise mechanisms but the sequence will not change. We know that plants and animals did not appear before the Sun did - that will not change. I could go on and list the other numerous errors in Genesis but it would serve no point - Genesis is wrong, badly wrong, and that is not going to change. In your words, it is 'a bag of lies'. This was known long ago - Augustine knew it over 1500 years ago (and said so). It is not a new development.
As I have previously said you can look at a literal translation of Genesis from the Hebrew at the address below. It gives the original Hebrew together with a translation of each word and a definition and more detailed explanation for each. Why not see if you can make your 'theory' stand up? (Hint - you can't because it just doesn't work)...
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/9_genesis.html I do speak out of faith, with no proof. I think there are many who would not have bought the version of the Bible that I read if the translation had said "became" rather than "was." The translators were watching out for their pocket books here. I stand with Genesis, perhaps naively, out of faith/fear of God. Which is not to say that God is scarey, just bigger than I am. for me to suppose that He is wrong because I do't get it, would be doing my Lord a great disservice. so for the scientifically minded, I concede that I cannot prove Genesis, But I challenge you (collectively) to call evolution anything but a theory. Evolutionists try and fail all the time.
Best regards and God bless.
I'm afraid this simply shows that you don't understand science. Everything in science is a theory - gravity, evolution etc. A theory is a scientific description of phenomena, that's what the word means. You are confused because you think a theory is something that is possibly wrong. That is the way that the word is used in day to day conversation. In science, however, it means something much different.
I don't understand what you mean by 'evolutionists try and fail all the time'. Can you give me one single example to back up that remarkable claim? It is not a case of 'not getting it'. We get it alright - Genesis is pretty easy to understand. It is just that it is wrong.
| stacygoode wrote: |
| I feel that we neglect the alternate translation of "in the beginning...the earth became formless." For me this provides a completely different timeline that I find acceptable. That "was" was used instead, even after the alternative was presented, only tells me that the translators didnt want to offend. |
Is that what it tells you? ^_^; That's unfortunate. Given that i have a little more faith in people and a little less in my own paranoia, it tells me that there must be something about the context that makes it make more sense as "was" than "became".
And, given my natural urge to seek out information to test my beliefs (rather than simply believing them and trying to force everything i see and hear to support them), i went out and did a little digging.
Turns out that the verb used in Genesis 1:2 is היה - or "hayah", which means "to be". In Genesis 1:2, it is used in the qal form past tense - היתה - so it means "was". Now, i could have stopped there - the sentence is clearly "the earth was formless", not "became"... but something told me to check a little further.
And i did, and i found that in Deuteronomy 27:9, the same verb stem "hayah" was used for "become": "...thou art become the people of..." It looked like you might have a case!
But then i looked a little deeper.
And it turned out that in Deuteronomy 27:9, even though the same stem was used, it was used in the niphal form, not the qal form. It is not היה - it is נהיה.
So what, right?
Well, you see, it turns out that in the niphal form, "hayah" becomes passive. Which means that in the qal form "to be", becomes in the niphal form "to come to be"... or... "to become".
So! Since it is in the qal form in Genesis 1:2, it is "to be" (or, in the past tense, "was"). And since it is in the niphal form in Deuteronomy 27:9, it is "to come to be", or "to become".
In other words... no, the translators were not involved in some conspiracy to be politically correct or whatever. They translated it correctly. The alternate translation - "the earth became formless" - would be wrong... that's simply not what it says (and if it wanted to say that, it could have easily done so with a single, simple nun (נ)).
| stacygoode wrote: |
| I think that science is continually proving itself incorrect, and if we just wait, it will catch up with what we were given by the Tora thousands of years ago. |
To the first part, yes, it is. That's actually what it's designed to do, it's really the whole point of science. If science ever stops proving itself incorrect, we would either be at a complete dead-end, or gods.
The thing is... it is not a matter of "catching up" with the Torah. For all intents and purposes, in Western science, the Torah is where we started. What you are actually hoping for is for science to be completely wrong, as in everything we've ever done from day one is all wrong, and we should have stuck with what we started with - that is, the Torah.
But does that sound right? To me, the chances of finding out that every accomplishment ever made in science was all wrong, and the original idea - the Torah - was right all along... it's a little strange. If science is so completely wrong... well, how can it be, i ask, as i type on this state-of-the-art computer connected to a global network, etc. etc.?
| stacygoode wrote: |
| Again, there are only two options, the Bible is divinely inspired, or it is a bag of lies, but I don't feel we (those who don't speak Hebrew) have been given a propper option in the first place. Just something to consider. |
חבל ^_^;
Aramaic: חבל = destroy, damage, injure
Hebrew: חבל = rope
Could this mean 'give them enough rope and they destroy/hang themselves' ?
If that was intended then that has to be the best word-play I've seen for a long time....rrrrressspect That might be the root of the expression. ^_^; It's actually slang used by Isreali kids - it translates to something with the sense of, "Oh, well," or "What a pity," or "That sucks."
| Indi wrote: |
| That might be the root of the expression. ^_^; It's actually slang used by Isreali kids - it translates to something with the sense of, "Oh, well," or "What a pity," or "That sucks." |
I much prefer the previous Let's see, Hitchhiker's Guide offers a solution;
truth is beauty therefore beauty is truth
the previous phrase is more beautiful and therefore more true
| Bikerman wrote: |
I will try to make more since of this for you.
Chapter 1.
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
So the Earth and Heaven were created at the same time and before the stars. Hmm..that seems to contradict all current understanding of cosmology.
I dont understand what it is you have a problem with here? Is it that the stars can be created after the earth and Heaven. Considering you probally believe that stars are still being created today even though it has never been observed. Or is your problem that the Bible doesnt have the Earth, Sun, Univers, Stars all created at the same moment where (the big bang) all the matter and energy in space came together and went boom. A question, where did all of that matter and energy come from if the big bang is your "The beginning"
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
This seems to say that the earth was full of water and yet 'void'. Given that a void is empty this seems self-contradictory
Just because it says void doesnt mean it is void of everything. You can say something is void of something specifly
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
From where does the light come?
Easy it came from God. Which you may not like that answer but if you are going to come and try to argue about something of the supernatural expect to get a answer that is not scientific.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Presumably this means he sets the earth spinning on its axis.
I would not say he set the earth spinning at this point considering the sun and moon were not created yet. As far as the light came from again I say God but if I had to guess I would say that he made light and then took it away to create the first day.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
So a day is measured from evening to morning? Hmm.
I am going to give you the translation straight from a hebrew to english Bible
And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day[b/]
Ok say it says there was evening(night) and there was morning(beginning of the new day) all this says is that between these two times it starts the new day and finishs the old
[b]6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
So there is a 'sky' or 'heavens' in the middle of a lot of water?
What this firmament would be the sky and atmosphere. This goes along with the flood where the Bible says there was water above the firmament(atmosphere) So what this means if you have the earth with water in it or on it then you have air and atmosphere and then above that is more water
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
So now we have water under the sky and water above it. Hmm.
Yes its the same as what I just said and you said about the last verse
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
Ahh...so now the firmament is heaven...but surely heaven was created 'in the beginning'?
Ok before we had earth with water on that and then space or heaven and when God seperated the waters the writer here is just letting you know that the space that is between water on the earth and the water above the firmament is also called heaven or space considering that it reverts back to its old state after the flood
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
So we have one ocean and one island? OK...that works.
I agree
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
OK, this works...we now have land and sea.
We both agree again
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
So the first life on earth is grass and trees? This seems to contradict everything we know about the appearance of life (the first life was primitive bacteria which appeared in the oceans about 4 billion yrs ago).
I have a question about this, do you yourself or perhaps you know someone who was there 4 billion years ago to see this primitive bacteria come about. You seem to state that as it is fact which it is not it has not been proven. So it doesnt contradict something you simply accept to be true.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Nope - grasses did not appear until about 65 million years ago (well over 4 billion years after the earth was formed). Trees evolved during the Devonian period (about 350 million years ago).
Again something that is not proven. How do you explain petrified trees that are standing upright that is sticking thru 3 diff layers or stratas of time age periods.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
Again this definition of a day as evening and morning. What happened to the afternoon?
First off the word afternoon did not come about untill around the 13th century. Second the way I use the afternoon to use for a time interger is to eat lunch. I dont say I have a apointment on thursday on the first half of the day.
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
Hang on - I thought light appeared on day 1? We are now in day 4. What's going on?
So God is now making the Sun and Moon and stars. So yes light appeared before but never said it was the Sun. How it worked I guess only God knows.
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Hmm...very odd indeed. Is this the creation of stars? Surely the Sun is a star?
This verse is mainly leading up to the next verse
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.
Ahh so this is the Sun and the Moon. But the moon is not a light - it merely reflects the light from the Sun. The seasons are determined by the Sun and the Earth's rotation/orbit but if we are only now seeing the Sun appear then how did the grasses and trees appear (since they rely on photosynthesis) ?
Ok first even though the moon is not a light or star like the sun it still provides light at night or lesser light. The verse doesnt say He made a great fireball it just says a lesser light. Which works pretty good if you ask me kinda like a intelligent designer set it up. Also can imagine the moon being a star, It would be pretty hot here I bet. How did the grass and the trees appear thats a good question but considering we are looking at what the day before when he spoke them into existance I dont think its a problem.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
Hmm...I wonder...
What nothing to say on this one lol
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
Good? It's a ruddy miracle...
Ok
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Again with this aversion for afternoons...did God have a bad experience one afternoon?
Again we dont measure a day by afternoon
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
So we now get sea-life and birds?
Yep
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Yep - sea life and birds all apear at once (including sea mammals). This contradicts everything we know about the appearance of life on earth...
Again based on what? something that is not proven
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
So we have creatures in the oceans and birds on the land.
Yep
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
Come on God...get over this afternoon problem.
Come on man thats just stupid
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
So now we get mammals and insects?
You sure figured it out
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Yep - mammals and insects now appear. Again this contradicts everything we know about the appearance of life on earth. The earliest insect fossils we have are around 400 million years old. The earliest mammals appeared around 220 million years ago. Cattle appeared much later down the line.
Once again based on what you know or think you know. Perhaps you would like to share with the class what proof you have to prove this 400 million time period and I mean a fact or piece of proof not some theory or something that may support this.
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
So mankind is now to appear?
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Hang on - I thought Eve was the first woman created from Adam's rib - but surely that is later in Genesis 2? Hmm...
What you want to notice is that chapter one is head of the book which follows is the major content going into more detail and even repeating what happened. Chapter 2 and on explains what chapter 2 verse 4 says
4 These are the generations of the heaven and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven. [b/]
So now we start from Adam and Even and continue down the line. I dont understand what is hard to understand there.
Now compare this with what we actually know about the evolution of life on earth:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/geo_timeline.html |
[b] | DavidkChase wrote: |
| I will try to make more since of this for you.[b] |
I presume you mean sense? In which case - fine.
| Quote: |
| I dont understand what it is you have a problem with here? Is it that the stars can be created after the earth and Heaven. Considering you probally believe that stars are still being created today even though it has never been observed. Or is your problem that the Bible doesnt have the Earth, Sun, Univers, Stars all created at the same moment where (the big bang) all the matter and energy in space came together and went boom. A question, where did all of that matter and energy come from if the big bang is your "The beginning" |
The BB was about 14 billion years ago. The Earth was 'created' about 4.5 billion years ago. That's quite a gap. Yes I do believe that stars are being created today and yes it HAS been observed. Your description of the BB is wrong - all the matter/energy did not 'come together'. We don't know what triggered the BB and perhaps we will never know. Alternatively we may find out - if m-theory turns out to be correct, for example. I don't think (without wishing to seem patronising) that you would understand m-theory or BB cosmology, however, since you need to do a lot of reading in physics before it begins to make sense.
| Quote: |
| Just because it says void doesnt mean it is void of everything. You can say something is void of something specifly |
Yes you can, but no it doesn't say that, does it?
| Quote: |
| Easy it came from God. Which you may not |