|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 653 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 ? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Inactive Member |
CogitoErgoSum writes: First posting, having read these forums from afar, so bear with me. Not my specialisation really, I teach Biology, but having to teach life cycles of stars I did a little research. If our sun is second, or third generation ; as they have found out by looking at the composition, does this not negate the whole "let there be light" narrative. The fact that our sun actually formed from a supernova of a previous sun means we have already had light. I await being torn apart with trepidation ! Genesis 1:1 is creation of the universe, which includes all matter/energy, space and time. This can be described in gravitation theories like bb, or any theories revolving creation of all material, space and time. Genesis 1:2 The spirit of God is in the earth and darkness covers the earth, after it was created. We don't know much about the creation of the earth except that it was created with the universe. I would presume the darkness was carbon dioxide, methane, etc filling the atmosphere as is shown in Science. Genesis 1:3 is when light penetrated the atmosphere for the first time here on earth. Later verses that discuss creation of the stars, lights, etc are mere past tense grammatically.Sincerely Blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Inactive Member |
Blue writes: Genesis 1:1 is creation of the universe, which includes all matter/energy, space and time. This can be described in gravitation theories like bb, or any theories revolving creation of all material, space and time.
Paulk writes: That's an assumption, rather it seems to be summing up the following verses - which certainly do not describe the creation of the universe as we know it. It is not an assumption that Genesis 1:1 is describing creation of the universe and earth which includes all matter energy, space and time. If the verse is true, then that is where all things root. It makes a prediction that we will not find a origin of the universe that is contradictory. Science is still yet to prove it wrong. Science can't prove God didn't create the universe. I also find it interesting that this is the only creation story in history that mentions creation of space and time, all others explain creation within space and time.Sincerely Blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Inactive Member |
Blue writes: Genesis 1:1 is creation of the universe, which includes all matter/energy, space and time. This can be described in gravitation theories like bb, or any theories revolving creation of all material, space and time.
Paulk writes: That's an assumption, rather it seems to be summing up the following verses - which certainly do not describe the creation of the universe as we know it. It is not an assumption that Genesis 1:1 is describing creation of the universe and earth which includes all matter energy, space and time. If the verse is true, then that is where all things root. It makes a prediction that we will not find a origin of the universe that is contradictory. Science is still yet to prove it wrong. I also find it interesting that this is the only creation story in history that mentions creation of space and time, all others explain creation within space and time. I also don't think it is definitive that verse 1 is a summation. This is just an argument, and it fits a specific vantage. The argument I am presenting is a different vantage of the chapter and it argues a completely different way of looking at it. When you look at them side by side, what I am arguing is much more plausible. Especially since it agrees with Science. It is a belief that God does not exist, not a fact. If we start from the vantage that God does not exist we are applying preconceptions.If we are to test scripture we should look at science and biblical thought, and find a good interpretation of them both. If we can't reconcile scripture at all, then I would agree it is false. This is a way of reconciling scripture and showing that it is actually perfect. God does not have to communicate all things if he does not want to communicate all things. God communicated what God intended to communicate. In this interpretation God is plausible because the predictions have not been falsified. Blue writes: Genesis 1:2 The spirit of God is in the earth and darkness covers the earth, after it was created. We don't know much about the creation of the earth except that it was created with the universe. I would presume the darkness was carbon dioxide, methane, etc filling the atmosphere as is shown in Science.Paulk writes:
In fact we know that the Earth came into existence about 4.5 billion years ago, a LONG time after the Big Bang (about 13.5 billion years ago). In fact this is closely related to the point of the post that you are supposedly replying to. I have no idea why you think that "darkness" would mean the atmosphere either. And you don't mention the references to the ocean (which seems to be the Primordial Ocean, common to Middle Eastern mythologies). Yes the universe came first and then the earth came billions of years later. This is not contradictory to the verse. It is written that God created the heaven and the earth. It is a past tense message. Heaven is rooted from the word shamayim which is translated as heaven, heavens, sky, visible heavens, sky, as abode of the stars, as the visible universe, the sky, atmosphere, etc.
Hebrew Lexicon I would interpret the verse where it reads darkness as carbon dioxide and other gases because we know that the earth was a dark place because of the atmosphere (with reference to the early earth). I was pointing out that it is interesting how these to bits of information do not disagree with each other. I also find it interesting that the verse was written during a time when there is no way they could have known it and it is in the correct order. Universe>earth>darkness and water was present. It is an interpretation from the lens of Science. Personally I don't care if the Science understood at the time the story was written was different. The important data here is that the order is correct. The fact that they meant a flat earth with a dome does not matter. I would interpret this as, God does not care about their Science vs they must be wrong and God does not exist.
Blue writes: Genesis 1:3 is when light penetrated the atmosphere for the first time here on earth. Later verses that discuss creation of the stars, lights, etc are mere past tense grammatically.Paulk writes:
Where does it mention light penetrating the atmosphere ? Where is the suggestion that light existed prior to this point ? And why do you decide that the "darkness" in this verse is completely different from that in the preceding verse ? In fact this verse seems to refer to the establishment of the day-night cycle, as verse 5 clearly states that the separated light is "day" and the darkness "night". In Genesis 1 the universe and earth were created. "let there be light" can be interpreted using science as light penetrating darkness (the dark clouds of carbon dioxide). This may have had a different meaning to the author. What I find interesting is the order, it is perfect. Why accept only the view that the ancients thought this so it is wrong because they thought this. If God communicated information for ancients to write, they don't have to understand universe the way we understand the universe.Sincerely Blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Inactive Member |
You're making a ton of assumptions about the purpose of scripture, including that it is a myth. I am not sure why it posted 2x but the 2nd post is my actual post.
Sincerely Blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Inactive Member |
NoNukes writes: Aren't both of those gasses invisible? They are not visible if the sun is not able to shine on them. The vantage of this verse is from within the earth. "the holy spirit is floating over the waters". If light is not able to penetrate within the earth because of the gas filling the atmosphere, we can't see the gas.
NoNukes writes:
So day four does not come after day two? The days still flow. In day 4, it is speaking in past tense. The verse is about why we have seasons not that he created stars and the moon.Sincerely Blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Inactive Member |
NoNukes writes: Now you are telling me that it was too dark to see the invisible gas? That is not an explanation. In order for you to see something it has to have light on it. Do you know anything about how the eyes work? You have to remember this is supposed to be from the vantage of a human being.
quote: God is denoting a 1st reason above. The action didn't actually take place in this verse.
quote: Past tense action from genesis 1:3.
quote: God is denoting a 2nd reason. Edited by Blue, : EraseSincerely Blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Inactive Member |
quote: The idea is that light was already created in Genesis 1:3. The seasons had already started, or it seems. In day 4 God is explaining why we have seasons. I didn't say he created seasons in this verse. God is denoting reasons for the sun, moon and stars..
quote: It is also a poetic way of explaining the seasons.
quote: I don't think the story flows well if we interpret it that light was created, then life, then the sun. Where did the light come from if not the sun? I feel it is important to interpret the chapter in a way that is logical at the least. I am not saying that we have to presume God does exist, but if we presume God does exist and interpret it the way I am claiming, it is more logical. It also is presenting a good argument that this is not a myth. You have to realize on another level that people in ancient times probably didn't have the same type of writing style and they most definitely didn't use as much grammar if at all. This is where the translation issue comes into play and I think the very reason for the confusion is because of translating issues. When we interpret it the the way I am claiming, I believe the translation is more correct in a sense. Mainly because it is more correct and agrees with Science. I am using Science to understand the chapter. Again you have to be able to presume God does exist for you to understand where I am coming from. Edited by Blue, : ErrSincerely Blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Inactive Member |
Everytime I look out at the night sky, early morning like 2am or night like 5pm I see the moon, as long as it is not cloudy. I will do my best to verify your claim.
Sincerely Blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Inactive Member |
IT reads from chaos came to be.. OR from chaos came forth...
It seems as if he was talking about time existing. Time does exist within chaos. The bible description is about the universe and earth coming into existence from God. As a creationist, I believe God is self existing and eternal. God is not subject to material laws. Personally I wouldn't suggest God is in the form of a human being. I preference a more pantheist approach, with the exception that the universe is caused by God. Ultimately I don't like doctrine that claims man was made in the literal image of God. Edited by Blue, : DeletionSincerely Blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Inactive Member |
You have not made a single good point. You rely on falsehoods and old interpretations, and old thought.
Sincerely Blue
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024