Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   If our sun is second or third generation, does this not conflict with Genesis ?
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 91 of 231 (616359)
05-20-2011 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by granpa
05-20-2011 11:21 PM


Re: you're going to have to "Stuudy Genesis" even more than that.
It is my personal theory that 'round things' were created on day four.
Like this?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by granpa, posted 05-20-2011 11:21 PM granpa has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 92 of 231 (616361)
05-21-2011 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by granpa
05-20-2011 11:21 PM


Re: you're going to have to "Stuudy Genesis" even more than that.
granpa writes:
It is my personal theory that 'round things' were created on day four.
but it doesn't say "round things". it says,
quote:
וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, יְהִי מְאֹרֹת בִּרְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמַיִם
which says nothing about shape, only that they provide light. notice that מְאֹרֹת has the same root as אוֹר in verse 3, "light". further,
whatever these round things were they came between the earliest living things (tree-like things) of day 3 and the living nephesh's (oxygen breathers) of day five
how does something created on day four become something on day three?

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by granpa, posted 05-20-2011 11:21 PM granpa has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by granpa, posted 05-21-2011 12:11 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
granpa
Member (Idle past 2341 days)
Posts: 128
Joined: 10-26-2010


Message 93 of 231 (616363)
05-21-2011 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by arachnophilia
05-21-2011 12:00 AM


Re: you're going to have to "Stuudy Genesis" even more than that.
You are right, it doesnt say that in the hebrew, but why assume that the story was originally told in hebrew. If it really is the story of genesis then it goes all the way back to Adam. There is no reason to assume that Adam spoke hebrew. Just because 'sun' and 'moon' and 'stars' dont have that association in hebrew doesnt mean that they didnt in the original language.
Its called 'extrapolating' not 'making stuff up'.
I have no idea what you are trying to say about 3rd day. What becomes what?
Edited by granpa, : No reason given.
Edited by granpa, : No reason given.
Edited by granpa, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by arachnophilia, posted 05-21-2011 12:00 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by arachnophilia, posted 05-21-2011 12:48 AM granpa has not replied
 Message 99 by NoNukes, posted 05-21-2011 8:57 PM granpa has not replied
 Message 100 by bluescat48, posted 05-22-2011 1:02 AM granpa has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


(1)
Message 94 of 231 (616366)
05-21-2011 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by granpa
05-21-2011 12:11 AM


Re: you're going to have to "Stuudy Genesis" even more than that.
granpa writes:
It doesnt say that in the hebrew
i quoted the hebrew. so.... yes it does.
but why assume that the story was originally told in hebrew.
because what we have is hebrew, and otherwise, you're just making shit up.
I have no idea what you are trying to say about 3rd day.
obviously.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by granpa, posted 05-21-2011 12:11 AM granpa has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-21-2011 4:24 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 95 of 231 (616372)
05-21-2011 4:24 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by arachnophilia
05-21-2011 12:48 AM


Re: you're going to have to "Stuudy Genesis" even more than that.
i quoted the hebrew. so.... yes it does.
You misunderstand him. You quoted the Hebrew and wrote that it "says nothing about shape". He was agreeing with you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by arachnophilia, posted 05-21-2011 12:48 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 96 of 231 (616379)
05-21-2011 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Buzsaw
05-20-2011 10:39 PM


Re: Mythology...
Hi Buz,
The best way for you to contribute to this thread is to play the role of the traditional creationist who believes the entire universe was created in six days around six or seven thousand years ago.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Buzsaw, posted 05-20-2011 10:39 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 97 of 231 (616381)
05-21-2011 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Buzsaw
05-20-2011 10:26 PM


Re: Assumptions
Buzsaw writes:
The BB theory, upon which both are based has some questionable unknown aspects like no existing area in which to have happened, no known before the event, no existing outside of in which to have expanded and no existing time in which to have happened.
Why is "no existing area in which to have happened" an issue?
Why is "no known before the event" an issue?
Why is "no existing time in which to have happened" an issue?
Why is "no existing outside of in which to have expanded" an issue?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Buzsaw, posted 05-20-2011 10:26 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 98 of 231 (616386)
05-21-2011 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Theodoric
05-20-2011 10:43 PM


Bump for Buz
Please provide the definitions you are using for hypothesis and theory.
In order to understand what you are trying to say I need to know what definition of the word you are using.
I claimed you are equivocating and you denied it. As you seem to be using definitions other than the definitions used scientifically, it seems, that yes, you are equivocating.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Theodoric, posted 05-20-2011 10:43 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 99 of 231 (616423)
05-21-2011 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by granpa
05-21-2011 12:11 AM


Re: you're going to have to "Stuudy Genesis" even more than that.
granpa writes:
You are right, it doesnt say that in the hebrew, but why assume that the story was originally told in hebrew. If it really is the story of genesis then it goes all the way back to Adam.
I don't think anyone believes that the creation story was handed down from Adam's day. Adam would not have seen most of it.
granpa writes:
Its called 'extrapolating' not 'making stuff up'.
Extrapolating generally is making things up.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by granpa, posted 05-21-2011 12:11 AM granpa has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 100 of 231 (616432)
05-22-2011 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by granpa
05-21-2011 12:11 AM


Re: you're going to have to "Stuudy Genesis" even more than that.
The story was first written in Hebrew, but whatever language it was first told is unknown, It could have been Sumerian, Akkadian, Babylonian, if brought to Canaan by Abraham, or it could have been a Canaanite story or brought there by some other peoples. It could be a compilation of many stories from many sources, altered, refined, or had other stories injected to the original.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by granpa, posted 05-21-2011 12:11 AM granpa has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by jar, posted 05-22-2011 9:18 AM bluescat48 has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 101 of 231 (616447)
05-22-2011 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by bluescat48
05-22-2011 1:02 AM


Re: you're going to have to "Stuudy Genesis" even more than that.
bluescat48 writes:
The story was first written in Hebrew, but whatever language it was first told is unknown, It could have been Sumerian, Akkadian, Babylonian, if brought to Canaan by Abraham, or it could have been a Canaanite story or brought there by some other peoples. It could be a compilation of many stories from many sources, altered, refined, or had other stories injected to the original.
That would depend on which chapters of Genesis you were talking about. The story in Genesis 1 would almost certainly have been written in Hebrew and certainly don't go 'back to Adam' as it was most likely created around the middle of the 600s BCE.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by bluescat48, posted 05-22-2011 1:02 AM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by bluescat48, posted 05-22-2011 9:37 AM jar has replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 102 of 231 (616449)
05-22-2011 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by jar
05-22-2011 9:18 AM


Re: you're going to have to "Stuudy Genesis" even more than that.
I am not denying they were written in Hebrew, just that the word of mouth stories themselves probably weren't, since they would predate the Hebrew language, and most likely came from various sources.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by jar, posted 05-22-2011 9:18 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by jar, posted 05-22-2011 9:41 AM bluescat48 has not replied
 Message 104 by arachnophilia, posted 05-22-2011 10:37 AM bluescat48 has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 103 of 231 (616450)
05-22-2011 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by bluescat48
05-22-2011 9:37 AM


Re: you're going to have to "Stuudy Genesis" even more than that.
It's very unlikely that Genesis 1 is an oral tradition tale. It's pretty clearly crafted as a later, much later, teaching.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by bluescat48, posted 05-22-2011 9:37 AM bluescat48 has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 104 of 231 (616451)
05-22-2011 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by bluescat48
05-22-2011 9:37 AM


Re: you're going to have to "Stuudy Genesis" even more than that.
bluescat48 writes:
I am not denying they were written in Hebrew, just that the word of mouth stories themselves probably weren't, since they would predate the Hebrew language, and most likely came from various sources.
as jar hinted at, genesis 1 is almost certainly not an oral tradition. genesis 2/3, perhaps. but genesis 1, no. it's an extremely late story, one of the last added to the torah, and shows extremely strong babylonian influence. the story in that form does not antedate the hebrew language. though, of course, the stories it is based on might -- you just would not recognize them as the story of genesis 1.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by bluescat48, posted 05-22-2011 9:37 AM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by bluescat48, posted 05-22-2011 11:28 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 105 of 231 (616454)
05-22-2011 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by arachnophilia
05-22-2011 10:37 AM


Re: you're going to have to "Stuudy Genesis" even more than that.
of course, the stories it is based on might
That is what I was implying.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by arachnophilia, posted 05-22-2011 10:37 AM arachnophilia has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by NoNukes, posted 05-22-2011 2:32 PM bluescat48 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024