|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 45 (9208 total) |
| |
anil dahar | |
Total: 919,519 Year: 6,776/9,624 Month: 116/238 Week: 33/83 Day: 3/6 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The Problems with Genesis: A Christian Evolutionist's View | |||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member (Idle past 299 days) Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: |
Hi granpa and welcome.
it says "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let fliers fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." Where does it say that? Every translation I have ever seen says "bird" or "fowl" or "winged fowl" or suchlike. Which translation are you using?
flying insects did evolve at that time. Not before invertebrates walked on the land they didn't. You can't wriggle out of this one my friend; the order of creation in Gen1 is wrong.
By the time it was translated into hebrew all knowledge of bacteria and eukaryotes had been lost and so the translators assumed it was referring to the round things in the sky. You know, I really dislike the Bible. I strongly disapprove of it. But even I would not want to despoil it as you are doing. Why must you twist its words so badly? Do you have some kind of grudge against it? Mutate and Survive "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member (Idle past 299 days) Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: |
Hi Granpa,
bacteria can give light upon the earth. google 'light emitting bacteria'. Fungi can also emit light.
So can some fish, worms, insects, centipedes, jellyfish, crustaceans, molluscs, squid, echinoderms, numerous micro-organisms... Go ahead; Google it. This is not some special feature of bacteria, it is a fairly common trait. Hey, you know what also gives off light? The Sun! Bacteria were not discovered until the Seventeenth Century. I kind of doubt that's what the author of Genesis has in mind when he talks about lights set "in the firmament of the heavens". Bacteria tend not to live in sky. Call me crazy, but I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that he meant the Sun, the Moon and the stars.
I must say that after thinking about it some more I really doubt that 'fliers' refers to birds or insects {link}. Your own link says that owph is used to mean "birds" 49 times, "bird" 18 times but "winged" only 4 times. I think you are over-reaching.
If you look at the overall structure of genesis you get the following. from darkness lightfrom light air from air water from water earth from earth life from life cells from cells ??? from ??? fish from fish animals from animals Adam from Adam Seth from Seth Enosh ...
That's a lot of wrongness. Your attempts to fix these problems are misguided. The order of creation presented in Genesis 1 is simply wrong.
darkness≫bacteria (stars and moon) light≫eukaryotes (sun) air≫??? (birds) sea≫fish land≫animals eden≫humans So ??? should be something that we are descended from and something that came between cells and fish and has some relationship with air. There is no such critter. The question marks you inserted are only there to help you shoehorn your theory into place. Genesis does not mention bacteria, you simply made that up out of whole cloth. Where you put question marks, my copy of Genesis has birds. It says birds and it means birds. And that's wrong. I can see how this might be a disappointment to many Christians, who would rather that the Bible agreed with scientific knowledge but there's no point trying to force the text to fit into an modern understanding of which its authors were completely unaware. That's what I mean by twisting the text.
the only thing that I can think of is that it refers to some kind of gilled oxygen breathing creature. the 'gills' being as it were 'wings' (extensions). Read that back to yourself. Go on, read it again. Doesn't it sound like over-reaching to you? It sure sounds like it to me.
Whatever it was it was clearly something that the translators could not be expected to know about. Nor could the authors have known about it. So instead of simply assuming that when they said "birds", they meant "birds" - birds being something that they would have known about - you suggest that they meant some mysterious creature, which you cannot identify and which they could not possibly have known about. Are you sure they didn't just mean "birds"?
So it is not surprising that they would render it as 'birds'. It would be even less surprising if they chose to render "birds" as "birds". Mutate and Survive Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given. Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given. Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given. "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member (Idle past 299 days) Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: |
Hi again,
While the overall structure of genesis allows us to see the general pattern (separation and evolution) I see separation, yes (as when God separates the land from the waters) but I do not see evolution, not in any sense of the word. The God of Genesis 1 simply creates by fiat, there is no evolution. In my opinion, Genesis 1 is not presenting a chronological sequence of events. It is presenting the various orders of created things in the order of their spiritual importance to the authors. They start with inanimate things, then move on to living things (probably including the "lights" which they may well have seen as being anthropomorphic beings), and at the top of this hierarchy sits humanity. It's not about a time-line, it's about presenting a spiritual hierarchy of God's creations, with man at its pinnacle. It was never meant to be interpreted as accurate natural history. Trying to read it that way will only obscure the authors' intents. Mutate and Survive "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member (Idle past 299 days) Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: |
Hi fletch and welcome to the forum!
If Genesis is not literal as you say, then the account of Jesus' lineage must not be literal either. Sorry to cut you off so quickly there, but that is not quite what I think. I see the Genesis accounts as being both literal and allegorical. I know that sounds a little... odd to modern ears, but I believe that this would have been normal practice to these ancient authors. What this does exclude is the idea that Genesis is meant to be an absolute and exacting literal history lesson. I suspect that the authors intended to describe events that they essentially saw as having happened (i.e. God made the world, made humanity, etc.), but they felt no qualms about using the details of the story to make the theological points that they were interested in. I do think that this means that the resulting lineages should be treated with a great deal of scepticism, but this is hardly the only problem in that regard.
A quick thing on creative "days". Yes, I have heard such Day Age arguments before and I so not find them convincing. As I said before, I think that the whole day-by-day chronology business is more of a literary device than anything. Anyway, I don't think this discussion really belong in this thread. Perhaps you might like to start a new thread to discuss the topic of Day Age Creationism. Mutate and Survive On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member (Idle past 299 days) Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: |
Hi Damon,
I have a problem with the way you seem to be arguing here;
The earth doesn't have literal "foundations" (verse 4). The sea doesn't have doors (verse 8). Therefore, the references to constellations in verses 31-33 are likewise intended to be understood metaphorically. That doesn't follow. You know, and I know, that the Earth does not rest upon foundations, but neither of us can say for sure that the author of Job 38 knew that. Indeed, I suspect that that author may well have believed in literal foundations of the earth. You seem to be arguing in the form where you assume that any inaccuracy in the text must be explained by an allegorical intent. That is a mistake. You can't just assume that a passage is not literal simply because a literal reading would be factually inaccurate. You are excluding the possibility that the passage was meant literally, but was just plain wrong. You appear to be assuming that the text must always be true, one way or another, but never simply wrong. This whole section of Job is mostly intent on waxing lyrical, but that doesn't mean that the authors aren't using the image of literal worldly foundations or actual stellar constellations as their symbols of choice. All they are trying to do here is repeatedly point out how brilliantly cool God is and how crappy humanity is by comparison. They're just using the device of saying "Can you do perform this amazing feat? No? God can! He's brilliant!", over and over again. The actual examples chosen to illustrate this point are almost immaterial. Mutate and Survive On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member (Idle past 299 days) Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: |
Well, I'm coming at Job (moreso Genesis, though) through the lens of other ancient near eastern literature. Creation literature like the Enuma Elish wasn't intended to be understood literally, but rather it had specific metaphorical meanings. You are entitled to your view, but I think that you are stating it in a rather over-confident manner here. You don't know that for certain or for all cases. Sometimes, I think, a text simply means what it says. You shouldn't exclude that. It is the simplest explanation after all, so it should strike us as being unparsimonious to discard it so readily.
There are times when it becomes clear that a certain text was not meant to be understood literally, and thus one has to search out what the actual meaning is. What makes you so sure this is one of those times? My interpretation - that of "God is brilliant!" - seems sufficient to me. The passage makes perfect sense under that explanation. Why complicate matters?
Imagery such as the "foundations of the earth" is actually common throughout ancient near eastern literature, so I'm not just choosing to interpret that non-literally without any precedent. Sure, but that may very well be because they actually did think the earth rested upon foundations. It's not so silly a belief. It seems pretty solid after all. Ancient Near East cultures did not know that they were dealing with a planet. They had little concept of such things. By their standards, worldly foundations might have made perfect, literal sense. The writer of Job may have thought the same way. Mutate and Survive Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given. On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member (Idle past 299 days) Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: |
Hi Damon,
Actually no, ancient peoples knew how to calculate latitude... Sure. But which ancient peoples? We only know for certain that the Greeks knew the Earth was spheroidal by the 5th century BC (although they may have known earlier). Even then, it did not become firmly established until much later, in the 3rd century BC. The Book of Job was only written around the 4th century BC. How can you say for sure that the knowledge had filtered through to Jewish scholars? How can you be so sure that the author of Job in particular knew of it and believed it? Obviously you can't.
... and even longitude, Wooah! Hold on there Damon! Citation needed. I do not believe that people in the 4th century BC could accurately determine longitude.
so they definitely had an awareness of the circumference of the earth. That is either very sloppy wording or another highly dubious and unfounded claim. The actual circumference? That was not known until the 3rd century BC. Again, citation very badly needed. Another problem here is that you seem to be engaging in a mistake that is apparent in much of what you have posted here. You seem to be treating "ancient peoples" as being far too homogeneous, as if what was known to one group was known to all. "Ancient peoples" knew of the spheroidal Earth, so the author of Job must have known it too. "Ancient peoples" injected hidden astrological meaning into Gilgamesh (in your view), so the author of Job must have done the same. You are, in my opinion, over-simplifying. The reality would have been that differing cultures and individuals would have had very different knowledge bases, customs and opinions. If you want to pursue this line of argument, it would probably be better off here; The Bible's Flat Earth.
See "Civilization One" by Christopher Knight and Alan Butler. Ignore the Freemasonic bias; their information is accurate. Freemasons... what the f...? No offence Damon, but I think I'll give that one a miss. It sounds completely insane. If you think that it contains specific information that refutes what I've said, either here or on the Flat Earth thread, please present it. Mutate and Survive On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024