|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,488 Year: 3,745/9,624 Month: 616/974 Week: 229/276 Day: 5/64 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creation | |||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi NoNukes
NoNukes writes: I suppose that if I am going to pound on a bad argument, I should acknowledge a good one. God could have been illuminating an earth covered with clouds. A formless and void earth. That is exactly what He was doing.
NoNukes writes: That's fine. It is not in accordance with science that the universe contained every star and planet at the time of formation of the earth. So what does being complete mean to you. The Bible does not say how much duration there was between the beginning and Genesis 1:2. Some scientist say the beginning was 8 billion years ago. The 13.4 billion year number has been revised to 13.55 billion years. Some scientist go as far out as 20 billion years. I don't care how big the number might grow too the Bible has it covered, as it sets no birthday. Being complete means it was a finished product, with mankind, animals, fowls, vegetation, literally everything except modern mankind and the great fish to swallow Jonah existed in the day God created the heavens and the earth. You probably will say that is impossible. And with mankind you would be correct but with God nothing is impossible. Now let me expand on the Day God created the heavens and the earth. Day being a period of light that ended with the evening and darkness we find at Genesis 1:2 God called that light period and the dark period at Genesis 1:2 with the second light period being the end of Day one. I say Day one instead of 'first day' as the writer of the Hebrew text used the Cardinal number instead of the Ordinal which the translators used to translate first day. That light period had existed from the beginning until the darkness came that we find at Genesis 1:2. During that light period God formed a man from the dust of the ground, planted a garden supplied vegetation, made animals and fowls from the Ground. He cloned a woman from a part of the man.God gave the man one rule to obey. The man chose to disobey God and was chased out of the garden. It is recorded that he had two sons of which the oldest killed the younger son Abel. The history of at least 7 generations is recorded in the fourth chapter of Genesis. Lamech killed a young man. Thus 2 death are recorded and no others. There is no ages given for any of those inhabitants of the earth. There was at least 1 city built. None of these people existed at Genesis 1:2. Therefore the man formed from the dust of the ground died the same day he ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, just like God said he would.
NoNukes writes: Okay. But that would be the case because Genesis 1:1 says nothing about the condition of anything in the universe. The Biblical Hebrew language the original text was recorded in requires that the universe and earth was completed. That is what the perfect verb requires no less. It does not say what the duration of the light period (day) the heavens and the earth was created in.
NoNukes writes: How is it that you make up things in the absence of any information. I am discussing what the Bible says so if I have made up something please point it out to me.
NoNukes writes: You seem to be putting forth that the world was complete in Genesis 1:1, Yes it was completed and inhabited.
NoNukes writes: then only partially formed and in fact formless in Genesis 1:2, only to become fully formed, No the earth was fully formed in Genesis 1:1. If the Hebrew text of verse two had been translated correctly you would understand that the second verse begins with a disjunctive conjunction not a conjunctive conjunction. So the first word of the second verse would be like it is in the Greek LXX which is But. Then had the to be verb היה been translated correctly as its definition states (1.to be, become, come to pass,) verse two would read 'But the earth had become.....In Isaiah 45:18 Isaiah quotes God as saying "he created it not in vain, which is the same Hebrew word as the one translated 'without form' in Genesis 1:2. NoNukes writes: only to become fully formed, well who knows when. It was fully formed in the day God created the heavens and the earth.But, something that we are not told happened to it to produce the condition of the earth in Genesis 1:2. Many tell me that was caused when the Devil was cast out of heaven. The problem is that he was till roaming through heaven in Job's lifetime. He is still there today and he will be there during the tribulation period which is in the future. So that was not the cause.
NoNukes writes: but does the Bible actually say those things, I have quoted the text, gave you the Hebrew to correct mis-translations so you examine the evidence.
NoNukes writes: or do you make them up because you think science is correct? I do not make things up and I do not believe science is correct.I do believe science can shed a lot of light on the Bible. Science starts out with some assumptions about creation. If those assumptions are wrong then many other things will probably be wrong. But that does not mean everything is wrong. God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Prolto
Proto writes: Science is precise and creation stories are not. How can you say science is precise concerning creation when science has to start out with some assumptions?
Proto writes: It seems to me that comparing the biblical creation story with what science has shown us is like looking for truth in the forecast of your horoscope. The Bible said the universe and earth were old before science had a clue. The Bible tells us the universe began to exist long before science decided the universe began to exist. The Bible tells us where the universe came from. Science is still working on their "We don't know" answer. The Bible tells us the universe is expanding long before science. The Bible tells us the land mass was all in one place long before science discovered it. The Bible tells us that land mass divided into the continents we have today, before science knew it was all in one place at one time. So like I told NoNukes science has shined some light on what the Bible recorded over 2800 years ago. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi jar
jar writes: What is created in Genesis 1 is the ritual Jewish week and the Sacred Sabbath and it is the justification for so many of the laws and traditions that defined being Hebrew. jar I know that is what you believe but could you be specific and show me where the Sacred Sabbath is what was created? God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi kbertsche
kbertsche writes: Unfortunately, I don't know of a Hebrew (or Greek) grammar that has a very complete list of idioms. If you find one, please let me know! If they are not in the Hebrew grammar books then they must not exist or not important to understanding the Biblical Hebrew.
kbertsche writes: You can also look up individual figures of speech in an encyclopedia or Wikipedia. As I mentioned earlier, "heavens and earth" in Gen 1:1 is generally classed as a "merism" (though I think Bullinger classed it as "synecdoche"). Here's what Wikipedia says about merisms: Are you saying that Genesis 1:1 is poetry? I thought since it had a verb, subject of the verb and 2 direct objects of the verb with a specific result. It was a statement of fact in a simple declarative statment. God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi kbersche
kbertsche writes: Check Bullinger's works. He starts identifying figures of speech in Gen 1:1. For "in the day" in 2:4, Bullinger has a note in his "Companion Bible" that says "in the day = when". Other study bibles do something similar. That is Rashi's teaching. But Moses is speaking of a specific day which he refers to as Day one in Genesis 1:5.
kbertsche writes: As Jar pointed out, these are NAMES (proper nouns). The first three days of Gen 1 involve naming. If we don't distinguish between the proper nouns (names) and the ordinary nouns, we will get confused. What makes them proper nouns? לאור is a feminine noun which means: 1.light1.light of day 2.light of heavenly luminaries (moon, sun, stars) 3.day-break, dawn, morning light 4.daylight and comes from the verb אור which means 1. to be or become light, shine יוס is a masculine noun meaning 1. day as opposed to night and is from an unused root word meaning hot.
kbertsche writes: For example, a "day" (lower-case d) contains both morning and evening, both a light and a dark period. The light period is named "Day" (upper-case D). Thus "Day" (the light period) is not the same as "day" (the full day, including more than just "Day"). I thought you knew Biblical Hebrew. Biblical Hebrew can not show the difference between day and Day as there are no lower and uppercase letters. There is only one case. Both are written יוס. BTW Modern Hebrew does not have case either. God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi NoNukes,
NoNukes writes: Why isn't the creation of man a part of creation? It is a part of God's creation just not the scientific version. In that version we don't know where or how the first life form got here other than by a fluke accident. God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi NoNukes
NoNukes writes: You are not addressing the question at all. By your logic, everything was created in Genesis 1:1. And yet no human's existed until day 6. Where does that fit in the order described in Genesis 1:1? Yes everything was created in Genesis 1:1.Mankind was the first life form on earth. He was formed from the dust of the ground and not created. So this man existed in the same day the heavens and the earth began to exist. Genesis 2:7. NoNukes writes: And saying that the universe was created does not mean that everything in the universe was created. There are stars in existence which were created well after the earth was created. So simply saying that the universe was created does not say that the sun and moon existed. Were those stars created or born? Isn't all the planets, earth and our sun all the same age?
NoNukes writes:
Where do you get the idea that darkness was created in verse 2 anyway ? God created the heavens and the earth in a day. Since God had not set up the 24 hour day at that time it had to be a light period as day is what God called light. God created darkness. Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
NoNukes writes: It is light that is said to be created after Genesis 2. Nowhere in the Bible does it say light was created.
NoNukes writes: Do you know what darkness is? Darkness is the absence of light.There is no such thing as absolute darkness as there is always light it just may not be in the spectrum that is visible to you. NoNukes writes: where is the creation of darkness described or mentioned? See Isaiah 45:7 above.
NoNukes writes: And what about the earth being without form? Was that the case or not? The earth had become empty and lifeless and covered with water. God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2154 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
ICANT writes:
Not necessarily. The best resource that I know of for figures of speech is not a grammar text, but Bullinger.
If they are not in the Hebrew grammar books then they must not exist or not important to understanding the Biblical Hebrew. ICANT writes: No.
Are you saying that Genesis 1:1 is poetry? ICANT writes:
I agree; Gen 1 is narrative, not poetry. But it is highly stylized and highly structured narrative. Although it is not poetry, it contains numerous poetic elements such as imagery, figures of speech, and repetition. I thought since it had a verb, subject of the verb and 2 direct objects of the verb with a specific result. It was a statement of fact in a simple declarative statment."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2154 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
ICANT writes:
What makes them proper nouns is the fact that they are names for things. The text says that God called (קָרָא ) the light "Day". If you look up קָרָא in BDB, you'll see under the Qal stem:
What makes them proper nouns?quote: ICANT writes:
I agree that Hebrew does not have upper case. But it does have names (proper nouns). And we use upper case in English to denote these names.
I thought you knew Biblical Hebrew. Biblical Hebrew can not show the difference between day and Day as there are no lower and uppercase letters. There is only one case. Both are written יוס. BTW Modern Hebrew does not have case either. God Bless,
Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 371 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
How can you say science is precise concerning creation when science has to start out with some assumptions? Science tells us about what we can see and about what we can infer from what we see. It uses language and terms that can be verified or refuted. While our scientific proclamations may not always be accurate they are usually precise and the method ensures that accuracy will increase over time. It is analogous to a series of arrow shots that get ever closer to the bull's eye where creation stories are a shot gun blast that make lots of noise and smoke and hope to hit something. Science is the thing that shows us what the shot gun blast hit by chance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
ICANT writes: Hi jar
jar writes: What is created in Genesis 1 is the ritual Jewish week and the Sacred Sabbath and it is the justification for so many of the laws and traditions that defined being Hebrew. jar I know that is what you believe but could you be specific and show me where the Sacred Sabbath is what was created? God Bless, I have explained that to you several times. The fable is the justification for the Jewish week and the Sabbath. The whole of Genesis 1 through Genesis 2:4 is where the week and the Sabbath are created. On each of six days the god character works and on the seventh day the god character does no work. Each day begins with evening and runs trough the night and the next daylight or as it is named in the story "Day" But "a day" the period of time, is a Night and a Day. The Jewish week is composed of seven days, each begins at sundown and runs until the next sundown. On six consecutive days Jews work but on the seventh day, the Sabbath, they can do no work. That is all there is in Genesis 1. There is no science. There are many factual errors. Some I have pointed out to you but there are errors in almost every day. The order of creation in the story is wrong. The Moon is not a light. The author(s) of the story were ignorant of what light even was. The heavens are not separate from what is in the heavens. The earth did not exist before the stars were placed in the sky. The errors simply go on and on. The story only makes sense if viewed as being about the creation of a ritual just as the older Genesis 2&3 myth only makes sense when seen as a "Just So Story". Trying to pretend the Genesis 1 fable is a factual scientific account denigrates the story and the authors, redactors and editors.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi jar
jar writes: Trying to pretend the Genesis 1 fable is a factual scientific account denigrates the story and the authors, redactors and editors. Well Genesis 1:2 through 2:3 has nothing to do with creation. Creation took place in Genesis 1:1 and the history of that day is recorded in Genesis 2:4 and the following verses. Genesis 1:2 through 2:3 is a remodeling of the original creation which had reached a condition described by Jeremiah in 4:23-26. God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Can you list the verses in the Bible in chronological order?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Proto
Proto writes: Science tells us about what we can see and about what we can infer from what we see. But when it comes to the actual beginning to exist of the universe science is silent. The BBT starts 1 billionth of a second after the universe existed. Where did the universe come from? It is impossible for the universe to begin to exist from an absence of anything. I have asked cavediver and Son Gouk what existed at T=0 and the answer was "we don't know". They were talking about science not knowing. So the assumption is that the universe began to exist because it is here. It could not have existed forever as it would be a dead universe long before now because it is expanding. So creation science is not precise. Yes I know there is the string hypothesis as well as a bounce hypotheses of which both are called theories but neither has reached that stage yet. Science can go only so far back in time and it comes to a place where the math will not work so nothing can be seen past that point. God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
ICANT writes: Genesis 1:2 through 2:3 is a remodeling of the original creation which had reached a condition described by Jeremiah in 4:23-26. In case you had not noticed Jeremiah is an entirely different story written by entirely different folk and has absolutely nothing to do with what is actually written in Genesis 1. Also, Genesis 2&3 are different stories written long before Genesis 1 and by a whole different culture and in it too Creation is just a plot device to tell a Just So story. Since it was written long, long before Genesis 1 it can't in any way describe what happened in Genesis 1. The fact remains that Genesis 1 is as I described and what is created in Genesis 1 is simply ritual. The fable is the justification for the Jewish week and the Sabbath. The whole of Genesis 1 through Genesis 2:4 is where the week and the Sabbath are created. On each of six days the god character works and on the seventh day the god character does no work. Each day begins with evening and runs trough the night and the next daylight or as it is named in the story "Day" But "a day" the period of time, is a Night and a Day. The Jewish week is composed of seven days, each begins at sundown and runs until the next sundown. On six consecutive days Jews work but on the seventh day, the Sabbath, they can do no work. That is all there is in Genesis 1. There is no science. There are many factual errors. Some I have pointed out to you but there are errors in almost every day. The order of creation in the story is wrong. The Moon is not a light. The author(s) of the story were ignorant of what light even was. The heavens are not separate from what is in the heavens. The earth did not exist before the stars were placed in the sky. The errors simply go on and on. The story only makes sense if viewed as being about the creation of a ritual just as the older Genesis 2&3 myth only makes sense when seen as a "Just So Story". Trying to pretend the Genesis 1 fable is a factual scientific account denigrates the story and the authors, redactors and editors. It is a shame that Christianity has tried to create the impression that the Bible (any of the different Canons) is actually one book with some consistent purpose. It's not. Trying to claim that Jeremiah is in anyway related to Genesis 1 or that Genesis 2&3 are related in anyway to Genesis 1 other than by being stories selected by a committee of Canon is doing the Bible a great disservice. 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