|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 656 days) Posts: 13 From: Manchester, England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: If our sun is second or third generation, does this not conflict with Genesis ? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
What Jon isquestioning is the fable being a creation fable as opposed to an organization fable. The initial image in Genesis 1 is of Chaos, a chaos system that exists but that the God character brings into order. It is not so much an act of creating land as of separating it from the water.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
CogitoErgoSum writes: Sorry I hadn't had time to reply. My very quick version of Genesis, 1st day light, 3rd day land First day: God (Elohim) creates light ("Let there be light!")[Gen 1:3] Second day: God creates a firmament ("Let a firmament be...!")[Gen 1:6—7]the second commandto divide the waters above from the waters below. Third day: God commands the waters below to be gathered together in one place, and dry land to appear (the third command).[Gen 1:9—10] and the question I was asking, perhaps a little glibly, was that if our sun is a second or even third generation star, how is this accounted for in this narrative ? Sorry, I realise I hadn't explained this clearly. Put it down to my forum virginity. Must try harder ........ It isn't. Genesis 1 is a much later story than the rest of Genesis but the emphasis was not on the creation narrative, rather the narrative was simply a plot device to discuss in poetic language the relationships between man and God and God and creation as seen by the people of that time and culture, likely between 640-610 BCE. The main purposes were to establish the Sabbath and to show what the people then saw as the relationship and overarching nature of their God. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
The sun is actually several billions of years old. 30 million years is essentially a new born sun for stars of the size of sol and smaller. Sure about that? Maybe the size of Jupiter or a little larger? I didn't think something with the mass of Earth or less would be capable of becoming a star? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Taq writes: Sure about that? Maybe the size of Jupiter or a little larger?
What NoNukes is trying to say is that stars the size of Sol and smaller (that are still stars and not gas giants) have very long lifespans compared to larger stars. 30 million years is a drop in the bucket for a 10 billion year lifespan (the expected overall lifespan of our Sun before it expands into a red giant). What stars the size of Sol and smaller? I did not think such a critter was possible? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Rahvin writes: jar writes: NoNukes writes:
The sun is actually several billions of years old. 30 million years is essentially a new born sun for stars of the size of sol and smaller. Sure about that? Maybe the size of Jupiter or a little larger? I didn't think something with the mass of Earth or less would be capable of becoming a star? A body needs to be several times larger than Jupiter to achieve fusion and become a star. Jupiter is the biggest gas giant in our solar system, but it's not really that big compared to other gas giants we've detected elsewhere. That's what I thought; not necessarily several times larger but at least more massive. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
NoNukes writes: Buzsaw writes:
The record tells us that one of the primary functions of the sun was to initiate the 24 hr day. Clearly implicated is that before day five, we have no knowledge as to how long the first four days were. That's right. We have no knowledge at all as to the length of those days. In fact there is no Biblical evidence that days 1-3 were not about 24 hours long or even shorter. There is no indication in the Bible that evening and morning became different lengths after the sun, moon, and stars were created. You can believe what you want, for whatever reasons you want. But your claim "The record tells us that one of the primary functions of the sun was to initiate the 24 hr day," is not Biblical. It's your own supposition. Well, actually there is evidence that the first days were the same as the latter days; exactly the same phraseology is used between each day.
quote: To pretend they are anything other than 24 hour days is to add to the story, the hubris of rewriting the Bible. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The period in the second half of 600BCE in Judah under King Josiah was one of great reform and a major revision of the descriptions of the Jewish God specifically to purge other gods and establish a distinctly different "Hebrew God". It was when Genesis 1 and Deuteronomy were written and leading to the still later writing of Leviticus that sets out the ritual and holiness codes.
It's a revision of YHWH from the older mighty human character to an overarching supreme, aloof and somewhat distant character. Both of these were new constructs, a new defining of God, the Priesthood and man and a redefining of the relationships between each. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
granpa writes: "literary analysis"? how are you going to analyze the oral tradition when we dont even know what language it was in? It may even be a dead language We are not analyzing the oral tradition; we are analyzing the WRITTEN work, and Genesis 1 as well as Deuteronomy and Leviticus were written thousands of years after any oral tradition. They are post-exile writings created during the reformation in Judah in the second half of the 6th Century BCE and the first half of the 5th Century BCE. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
granpa writes: "we" were discussing post 90. the hebrew written version of genesis may indeed have been influenced by babylonian mythology but I suggested in post 90 that both were influenced by a much earlier (and much more accurate) preflood and prebabel oral tradition. I also suggested that the language may now be dead. Yes, I understand that is what you are claiming. However the Genesis 1 story as well as Deuteronomy and Leviticus are relatively modern creations designed to establish a unique Hebrew theology. There was no Biblical Flood. Never happened. There was no Tower of Babel as described in the story. Never happened. Genesis 1, Deuteronomy and Leviticus were written during the purge of other religions and gods and the reformation initiated under King Josiah of Judah. The whole goal of that reformation was to create a new and unique Hebrew people that was different from what they had experienced either during the exile or during the preceding years post exile. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
granpa writes: It is true there is no direct empirical evidence for this theory but we can extrapolate from what we can see to what we cant see. we cant see neutrons directly but we can infer their existence anyway. And we can test for their existence. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
granpa writes: And how do you test something like the documentary hypothesis? By examining both the documents themselves as well as actual history. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Of course there are proofs that the Biblical flood never happened and I have presented them here many times.
In fact the Bible proves that the Biblical flood never happened. I will present it yet again in the hope that you will never again post anything as silly as an assertion that the Biblical flood ever happened.
quote: And there is no genetic bottleneck signature common to all animals pointing to the same event; thus the Biblical flood has been totally and completely refuted. It really is that simple.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024