The Problems with Genesis: A Christian Evolutionist's View

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

Correct, and this was first stated in genesis.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

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

quote:

---

—, ; -
v'yo'amar elohim "yehey or!", v'yehey or.
and god said, "be, light!" and light was.

---

quote:

---

—, - ’—
v'y'as elohim et-ha-shani ha-maorot ha-gdolim
and god made the two great lights

---

you could render the second as "luminaries" or "lamps" if you wish, but it means "source of light." the first is just light in general, and the days are evidently lit. there is no word for "universe" in biblical hebrew. nor is there for "planet" btw. but the picture genesis presents is the whole of known creation. that is, after all, the point of writing, "when god began creating..." as the very first words. there can be nothing before this point, by definition. the cause is god. god commands light to exist, and it does. why does it need a source? ...so the authors of the bible got it wrong, and this compelled scientists to get it right? i'm not sure what you're trying to say here.Edited by arachnophilia, : broken tags

---

quote:

---

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

​

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
—, ; -
v'yo'amar elohim "yehey or!", v'yehey or.
and god said, "be, light!" and light was.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
—, - ’—
v'y'as elohim et-ha-shani ha-maorot ha-gdolim
and god made the two great lights
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

​

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

​

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

---

Its not confusng. science evolved, via ups and downs, but it had to begin somewhere, by a compelling, challenging tought - which is the OT. Unless someone can posit another previous or near the same time, even a document a 1000 years later than the OT, which makes stats which leads to science? I find literally millions of stats in the OT words and verses as scientifically, historically and geographically vindicated, while it displays such with bold, specific dates and names. Remember, the most controversial and risk prone stat today is that speech endowed humans are some 6000 years old, and that the pig has a hidden biological attribute not shared by any other life form: we cannot disprove these today, despite every advancement.There is an unscientific display by the anti-creationists, who have much to loose: they cannot acknowledge what is blatant, because it is the document which spurred their premises. But my pursuit s truth, and this is nly possible via truthfulness.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

I still need the chapter and verse from Genesis that supports a calendar, not a cut-n-paste from some website. That may well be true depending on which Creation Myth you happen to be using, but the reality is that birds are animals. Dinosaurs were animals.

---

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

I'm not sure what "listed previously" means here. If it is a reference to your post in Message 6, then that is just your exotic interpretation, so not relevant. The reference is Genesis 1. It is easy enough the read, and what it says is simple, eloquant, and supports my point - at least to honest readers who do not attempt to impose their own exotic interpretations on the text. LOL.I was responding to willietdog. So unless you are also willietdog (a violation of the forum rules), then my "As you point out" was not talking about you.

This means you use the Atheist interpretation of scientific evidence to "interpret" Genesis through. We have never seen any Biblical scholar endorse this filter to interpret Genesis.Willie: how does anyone know that you are a Christian? This is a debate or discussion Forum that requires evidence to support claims. Where is the evidence that you are a Christian? The evidence that you have provided (rejection of Genesis one and two) says you are not a Christian.Willie: are you aware that nearly all Atheists are evolutionists? Do you think they support evolution because it supports Christianity? Needless to say, Willie, they support evolution because evolution claims to refute Christianity. Again, this is more evidence that you are not a Christian since Christians and Atheists have diametrically contradicting beliefs concerning ORIGINS.Willie: how does anyone who does not know you verify that you are a Christian?Based on the evidence that you have given us you are either ignorant, confused or even lying ("but I would rather not consider that").Ray

Cold Foreign ObjectI support evolution because it is more logical and has more proof than does Genesis. I couldn't care less about a persons belief or lack of belief in a religious denomination.Edited by bluescat48, : No reason given.

---

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

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

quote:

---

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

​

St Augustine
  —St Augustine

---

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

---

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

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

---

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs

Ray, are you aware that all squirrels are mammals?Does this mean all mammals are squirrels?By your "logic," dogs, cats, whales, cows, and all other mammals must be squirrels.Not all Christians are your kind of Christians. You don't get a monopoly on the word for people who agree precisely with your view, any more than I am forced to agree with all other Atheists about everything in order to still call myself one.

---

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

I guess you didn't get the memo.We kicked you out at the last meeting for saying "Gesundheit" too many times.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Lies and slander! I never say "Gesundheit!"I say "Bless you." Yes, I am aware of the irony.

---

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

one thousand creation stories. The earth was created; describing this creation differs from observer to observer. In other words, I am describing a phenom my way, you take the same phenom and describe it your way. Does that change the event?You will not prove God, creation, and everything inbetween. It is not meant to be proved. Origins from a non-creation pov, will also not be proved.I want to know what origins has to do with evolution.Edited by ThreeDogs, : No reason given.

joseph, surely you see the difference between these two words? and see that great big "mem" on the beginning of the second one? in general, it's a prefix that means "where." in this case, the combination of it and the first word have formed a new word, meaning "source of light." literally derived from "where the light is." so yes, the word "source" is in the text, both literally and etymologically. heaven is created on day two. earth is created on day three. the sun and moon and stars are created on day four. one needs only to read the first chapter of genesis to see this. the first verse, which reads:

quote:

---

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

---

it rather clearly applies to the rest of the chapter which follows and not a creative action of its own. we can tell this because it's a dependent clause, in hebrew. evidence for this position may be found in my thread on the subject, initially posted in response to you. it's also worth noting that you never once replied there.further, "heaven and earth" is a merism, loosely meaning "everything." you are essentially saying that the rest of the chapter (where it describes creation) doesn't matter, because everything was created instantly in the first verse. this is an irresponsible, incorrect, and just rather silly way to read. why ignore 30 verses in favor of an obviously flawed reading of one? the text says the sun is created on day four. deal with it. anyone who thinks there aren't scribal errors simply hasn't studied the text enough. and if you prefer the KJV, this point is especially ironic -- the KJV favors the qere over the kethiv. meaning, the marginal notes where people wrote "this bit doesn't make any sense, they probably meant this." that's modern hebrew. in biblical hebrew, olam means "eternity." eretz means "land" or "country" or "ground." the concept of a planet, in the modern sense, just does not exist in the bible. "grammatically wrong?" the enuma elish. older than the bible, same cosmological picture. same thing with egyptian mythology -- which was more directly connected to the greek traditions from which western science derive. what an interesting double standard. if your pursuit is truth, and your map is the bible, maybe you should learn how to read it correctly before making such claims. you have rather clearly demonstrated a complete disregard for the words of the bible above.

---

quote:

---

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

---

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