The Problems with Genesis: A Christian Evolutionist's View

(If you click the small "reply" button at the bottom of each post instead of the "Gen Reply" button, your post will link to the one you're responding to. You can also click the "peek' button to see how quotes, etc. are done.) I'll quote it for you again:

quote:

---

Gen 1:14-15 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

---

They mark the seasons, the days and the years. They're in the firmament (sky). They certainly don't sound like bacteria. That makes no sense at all.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

actually it says 'upon' the face of the expanse of heaven
Genesis 1 Interlinear Biblepretending not to understand something so as to avoid having to defend your position against it is the height of and indeed the very definition of 'disingenuity'. Edited by granpa, : No reason given.Edited by granpa, : No reason given.Edited by granpa, : No reason given.Edited by granpa, : No reason given.

Okay, so how do you explain bacteria "upon" the sky? And once again, how are bacteria used to mark the seasons, the days and the years?

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

So spirochaetes didn't get created until some other day? Did syphilis not show up until after The Fall?Welcome to EvC, Granpa. I hope you have fun here.

I clearly stated that they were between cells and fish. That is certainly not bacteria and it shows that you arent listening to, nor making any effort to comprehend, anything that I say.the 'face of the atmosphere' would obviously be where the atmosphere meets the water.
Its even conceivable (though not necessary) that they stuck their gills completely out of the water and waved them in the air. (That is considered to be one possibility of how insects evolved wings)

You clearly stated in Message 75: That's what I'm replying to. If you're talking about something "between cells and fish" that emits light, then I'll ask yet again: How do you explain them being used as signs for the seasons, days and years?I'm making an attempt to comprehend your viewpoint by asking the question but you're not answering it.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

Welcome granpa,Glad you decided to add to our diversity. We have a wide variety of forums for your debating pleasure.As members, we are guests on this board and as guests we are asked to put forth our best behavior.
Please read the Forum Guidelines carefully and understand the wishes of our host.One thing we do stress here is to argue the position, not the person. Please direct any questions or comments you may have concerning this post to the Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 thread.Again, welcome and fruitful debating.
AdminPD Edited by AdminPD, : Sig block

---

Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encylopedia Brittanica, on debate

ah. I see. Mea culpa. And you are right it does say 'in the expanse of shamim'.you do raise a valid point.
While the overall structure of genesis allows us to see the general pattern (separation and evolution) and thereby guess at the original text, which is lost, unfortunately the details are obscure. Verses 14, 15, 17, & 18 are particularly mysterious.there are 3 possibilities that I can think of offhand.
1. they werent in the original at all
2. they were in the original but were on the first day rather than the 4th (I am leaning toward this possibility)
3. they are a poor translation of some obscure words whose meaning we cant even guess at (yet).my 'viewpoint' though should be quite clear. I gave it in its entirety in message 75

What about, simply, the Bible being wrong here?Or is that just not a possibility?

Verses 14, 15, 17, & 18 are only mysterious if you deliberately leave out verse 16:

quote:

---

Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

---

It's talking about the sun, moon and stars. They divide the day from the night and they're signs for the seasons, days and years (verse14). It's pretty explicit. And they were created the day after the green plants. I mentioned a fourth possibility earlier on: the Bible is just wrong about it.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

it is wrong there.
the question is why is it wrong there?

I already explained verse 16.
It fits very well into the overall pattern (separation and evolution leading to humans) of genesis.I have no desire to force anyone to accept my interpretation.
I merely present it as a possibility for consideration.
It is very clear that you have already made up your minds on this and thats fine. Edited by granpa, : No reason given.

But verse 16 has nothing to do with evolution leading to humans. It's clearly about lights in the heavens. Why else would they be used as signs of the seasons, days and years? I don't see where you've explained that part.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

Because it was a retelling of a campfire myth, originally told by nomadic goatherders and codified a couple of millenia later by pre-scientific folks who really thought that the universe was created in a few days with a platter-shaped place for folks to live at its center. And that it was later covered up entirely by a flood that left eight survivors. And that the Sun, Moon, and stars were attached to the inside of some sort of a big-ass dome.

---

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

Because it was written a very long time ago, before scientific advancement.Its a myth about creation, not a fact book.We'd expect there to be inaccuracies.ABE:This is what the writers thought they were working with: Of course they'd get parts wrong!Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE