|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 02/21/2005 : 11:00:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Mc
Tell me something. Why would the Israelites care about how another race of people was created?
At the very least, if they weren't created directly by the hand of God, it would be wonderful political leverage to drive levels of xenophobia and racism even higher.quote:
How is it "useless"? It establishes their God's creation of the Earth and themselves.
No, the Bible just saying "God made the Earth and the Sun and..." establishes His work. Extra verses about how it was done, or in what order, do not establish it more firmly.quote:
There's plenty of light for seed bearing plants to grow in diffused sunlight.
Support this assertion. Tell us exactly how the constant "cloud" cover was thin enough to allow complex plants to grow, but too thick for Moses to see a bright spot called the Sun.quote:
It was hot rock, not land.
I would guess that Moses, given the prejudices of his time, would have considered anything not water-covered - and not magma - to be "land."quote:
That happens before verse 9. The cooling process itself is between verse 8 and verse 9.
You didn't say that. The Bible doesn't appear to say that. Either way, Pangea didn't "rise" out of the ocean. And what happened to Gondwanaland, anyway?quote:
There is no mention of "whales"
I give you King James' translation of Genesis 1:21. What are you using?
quote:
The closer view of The Eagle Nebula shows that the dust can be dense enough to block starlight. When our Sun is formed, it's simply too bright.
What came before the Eagle nebula? If you're going to claim that Genesis 1 accurately depicts the order of creation as understood by today's science, "In the beginning" means in the beginning.
But it doesn't matter, since seed-bearing plants didn't come before fish. And birds didn't come before land animals. The order is wrong, period.quote:
quote:
do you agree that your version of Genesis 1 is self-contradictory?
No.
You seemed to earlier.quote:
It's used twice in verses 1 and 2 for introdutory purposes. I don't see a misuse of the word.
That's not what I asked. Why is the author switching from "earth" meaning the whole planet in Genesis 1 to "Earth" meaning "the part of the planet occupied by Jews" in Genesis 6 through 10?quote:
Inconsistency is relative to purpose. I don't find any inconsistencies.
The use of the word "earth" is inconsistent.quote:
Why should I trust an author that uses a word like "anathema"
We're not talking about me. Answer the question.quote:
I don't even trust that stars are where we think they are.
They're not. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2005 : 11:05:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by George
The Geneisis observer's description indicates to me he would be observing from a good distance above the disk.
You'll have to take that issue up with David Mc, as he thinks Genesis is written from the point of view of the Earth itself. If we're a "good distance above the disk," Moses should have written that the Sun was formed first.quote:
The Moon formed after the Earth was formed due to an impact. This is the current mainstream view. It may not have been around at the time of the proposed observeration.
Indeed, you are correct.quote:
It may be "plausible" to assume the Sun was not nuclear and covered in dust at the time. A star, or stars, located behind the observer with dark space beyond the disk would be one scenario, IMO.
Granted, this is somewhat imaginative but it may still have merit. At least it's worth kick'n around a little.
I still want to know why "beginning" doesn't mean "beginning." Is it only to try to mesh Genesis with science's account? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
George
New Member
USA
30 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2005 : 13:44:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by George
It may be "plausible" to assume the Sun was not nuclear and covered in dust at the time. A star, or stars, located behind the observer with dark space beyond the disk would be one scenario, IMO.
Granted, this is somewhat imaginative but it may still have merit. At least it's worth kick'n around a little.
I still want to know why "beginning" doesn't mean "beginning." Is it only to try to mesh Genesis with science's account?
From the viewpoint of the observer, he may have seen it as the "beginning". Also, this could be considered a good term to use since the Earth would not be the "Earth" until some given amount of mass became the central gravitational point of attraction (appearing initially as a "void", possibly, in the disk).
This would also be the first "day" for the observer. It would be God's prerogative as to which moment He would want the observer to begin his free-ride observation (or vision).
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2005 : 16:50:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by George
This would also be the first "day" for the observer. It would be God's prerogative as to which moment He would want the observer to begin his free-ride observation (or vision).
It's pretty clear that the story in Genesis starts with a clean slate. It isn't an arbitrarily selected point, it's the start of creation. "In the beginning there was the word." And that's it. A void and then god's word. Not, "In the beginning, there were a few stars, three black holes, a quasar, seven dusty nebula and the word."
The story begins at a time before there was anything. To suggest otherwise limits god's power. I mean if what you were suggesting is true, who's to say Moses' god had anything to do with the stuff that was already there when he started creating? Maybe Yaweh just made our solar system but the rest of the universe had been there for awhile, created eons earlier by a much more powerful god, his boss perhaps. Do you really think a story about origins wouldn't start the very beginning? How far from the original text to you want to keep supposing?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 02/21/2005 16:58:19 |
|
|
|
George
New Member
USA
30 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2005 : 17:37:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
It's pretty clear that the story in Genesis starts with a clean slate. It isn't an arbitrarily selected point, it's the start of creation.
It was certainly a creation moment but which one? The moment most important to mankind would be the formation of our planet and star. Could not God choose this moment over another and still be consistent with scriptures?
quote:
"In the beginning there was the word." And that's it.
The "word" in this scripture (John 1) is a "who". It is meant to show Jesus as part of God. It does nothing to explain our history, yet does help explain His story.
quote:
A void and then god's word. Not, "In the beginning, there were a few stars, three black holes, a quasar, seven dusty nebula and the word."
That would have been interesting.  What was described in Genesis presents some simple basics to our formation. Apparently, no star was reported until "let there be light" was spoken. The solar system would now have an energy source to give us critical provision for existance. Very applicable for mankind.
quote:
The story begins at a time before there was anything. To suggest otherwise limits god's power.
I am only limiting what may have been observable to the observer during the brief moment he did his observing.
quote:
I mean if what you were suggesting is true, who's to say Moses' god had anything to do with the stuff that was already there when he started creating? Maybe Yaweh just made our solar system but the rest of the universe had been there for awhile, created eons earlier by a much more powerful god, his boss perhaps.
The Genesis account has Earth being created in the beginning. Clearly, science has demonstrated that Earth was not around at t=0 (which no one knows how to handle). Therefore, if the "beginning" is associated with Earth's creation, then we may know about when this was (4.5 to 5 billion years ago). If Earth's formation is tied to the "beginning", and we discover when Earth formed, do we not now know when this "beginning" began?
I am doubtful that God would have a boss. If He does,His boss might not like Him going around telling folks He is the "alpha and omega", and such. I see no reason not to allow God to transcend all spacetime.
quote:
Do you really think a story about origins wouldn't start the very beginning?
Yes. If you consider the "beginning" of each race, are you really looking at the beginning or a point in time that makes the most useable sense to everyone? This "beginning" should be one that is the most meaningful "beginning". Ask Jeff Gordon. 
quote:
How far from the original text to you want to keep supposing?
It must stay within a sphere of plausibility.
|
| Edited by - George on 02/21/2005 17:49:04 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2005 : 00:24:38 [Permalink]
|
Did SFN become the target of an apologetics club recently?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2005 : 04:31:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Did SFN become the target of an apologetics club recently?
Oh, I do hope so! It keeps the boards lively and causes us to research. And perhaps, we will cause our apologist brethern to research a bit as well; a win-win situation any way you look at it.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
George
New Member
USA
30 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2005 : 16:02:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Mc
So maybe that's why he called them "waters", because they looked blue? That should be something I can jump up and down to.
Go ahead, won't hurt my feelings. [Is there an icon for such?]
quote:
But I'm probably a better skeptic than some folks on this board are. I don't even trust that stars are where we think they are.
quote:
Revelations has to be all visions. Way too much odd behavior in that book.
Odd indeed! I still suspect, however, he was describing things from his perspective only. Writting what he saw, not taking dictation. If so, it helps shed light on the context of Gensis.
quote:
quote:
But God called the firmament "Heaven". I suspect the separation of the "waters" from the firmament might have been our disk moving further from the incubator (maybe).
Moses refers to "waters above" and "waters below". I can't think of any reference to anything moving away from the Earth. It all mimics the condensation of the cloud to me.
The firmament did not exist (or did not seem to exist to the observer) until "God made the firmament". Then, the waters were divided. I suspect there was dynamic cloud (or disk) motion. Heaven might be the observer's term to discribe where God seemed to be.
I am not stuck on these conjectures. But, I am hunting down plausiblity. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2005 : 04:09:41 [Permalink]
|
The discussions between DavidMc/George and those of us trying to reply is getting unwieldy. I copied the three posts of George's and my exchange from the BABB but it is too long to post as is and have it make any sense. Let me work on it a bit and try to find a way this topic might be divided up so it is easier to track. I'm afraid if I go from point to point, the earlier points will be lost and then the counterpoints start over again. I've seen it time and time again and there is some of it going on in this thread already.
What I'd like to do is to take long exchanges with multiple quotes/answers and break them up into a back and forth of single ideas and separate posts for separate issues. If you all aren't burnt out on the topic by the time I get around to it, it should make it easier to follow. No one has to do anything differently on this thread. I'll try to summarize some of the point counterpoints on a new thread along with my 2 cents. I just have to wrestle the computer away from my son and his Everquest addiction long enough to get it done. |
|
|
|
George
New Member
USA
30 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2005 : 11:37:32 [Permalink]
|
Sounds good to me, beskeptigal. I am trying to remain analytical on this creation scenario. As you may know, my attempt at this in BABB wandered very quickly away from science. This may be just the right place to test it.
IMO, these various scenarios are worth running through the grinder in an organized way. Evolution makes too much sense to be wrong. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2005 : 11:48:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Evolution makes too much sense to be wrong.
Now that would make one hell of a good signiture!
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
George
New Member
USA
30 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2005 : 14:47:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
Evolution makes too much sense to be wrong.
Now that would make one hell of a good signiture!
Thanks. I'll loan it to you. I wouldn't look like a trouble-maker if I used it.
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2005 : 13:00:46 [Permalink]
|
| Just an FYI update, I am still working on the Bible science thing. On notepad it came to 39 pages!!! I'm taking them a little at a time. Should be worth it when done (I hope). Even if no comments are left to be made, we'll have a summary of those that were. |
|
|
|
George
New Member
USA
30 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2005 : 18:53:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Just an FYI update, I am still working on the Bible science thing. On notepad it came to 39 pages!!! I'm taking them a little at a time. Should be worth it when done (I hope). Even if no comments are left to be made, we'll have a summary of those that were.
Yikes. Is it that bad?  |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
