Problems with the biblical Genesis story (split)

[Jan Ardena]

James R,

Even with your artificial "make/create" distinction, there is no reading of Genesis that says the Sun and the Moon were revealed on the 4th day or "appointed".

Please state why the distinction is artificial, then please explain why you have not reconsidered your claim, when there is absolutely no evidence, or explanation to back it up.

I don't care whether or not it speaks directly about the sun and moon, we can assume that's what is meant.

Absolutely. All of science is inference based on evidence.

But you have no evidence or explanation. What you purport only exists in your head, nowhere else. In fact it is clear that you are heavily leaning on your imagination (only) to justify your lack of belief in God. It is as if you will be forced to reconsider your position if you accept the reality of what the Bible says, so you purposely refuse to acknowledge it.

There are many reported miracles in the bible, and supernatural occurences. So, yes.

Magic is the art of producing illusion for entertainment purposes, using slight of hand. So no.

No. You referred to god's "associates" and explicitly to "other gods".

Since you are not forthcoming on this simple question, let me as it again directly:

Do you believe in more than one god? A simple yes or no will suffice.

And, if the answer is "yes", then how can you claim to believe in the literal truth of the bible?

I refered to ''God's'' asociates, which included ''gods''.
Scriptures inform us that there are innumerable ''gods'' involved in the working of the whole universe.

How does belief in ''gods'' contradict the claim to believe in the literal truth of the bible? Bearing in mind you have now been informed of the distinction between God, and god.

No it doesn't. Because "make" doesn't mean "reveal" or "appoint". It means "create" or "construct" or similar.

Didn't you read the evidence?
Or doesn't it count because it doesn't agree with you?

I guess you're used to going out looking for things that back up your belief, and accepting or rejecting them on those grounds.

Based on this discussion, why should anyone accept your guess work.

Also, I assume you're used to looking at who says something before you consider what they said.

Of course you would, and nothing in this world would convince you otherwise, regardless of whether it was true or not.

I am not like you.

Who are you like?

I don't accept it because it "backs up my belief".
While I think that the people at answersingenesis are, indeed, crackpots and religious nuts, I do not think that everything that appears on the answersingenesis site is wrong. In fact, a large problem with that site is precisely that it so often mixes fact with misleading fiction in order to advance a particular political/religious agenda.

In other words if it fits with your position you will accept it.

In the current instance, I am not accepting the answersingenesis interpretation on their authority, but because it accords with the interpretations of many other people and also with common sense.

Argumentum ad populum. Well done.

Here I am stating a fact, not a perspective.

Your so called ''facts'' are based on religion.

Maybe. What's a Purana?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purana

And I'm sure you'll agree that anything can be made to seem in accordance with one's preferred views using the wrong approach analysis, too.

So we won't mention what we think it may contradict.

What God does in Genesis is create the world ex nihilo by calling it into being bit by bit. That is a supernatural act by a supernatural being.

Magic is creating illusions for the purpose of entertaining an audience.
You are using the the term ''magic'' to make the whole thing seem silly.

The supernatural has nothing to do with pulling rabbits out of hats for the purpose of giving the audience a giggle.

Are you saying that Nature existed before God?

There is no BEFORE God.
Matter exists eternally, when God interacts with it nature is born.

Can God create things, according to you? Or can he only "reveal" what already exists?

Silly question. It says ''In the begining God created the heavens and the earth''. Did you miss that one.
To answer your question you need only to read any scripture, literally.

A straightforward reading of the text says that's exactly what he (supposedly) did.

Yes it does, but you refuse to acknowledge it because it contradicts what you think you know.

You're now reduced to falling back on some global conspiracy that includes both scientists who believe in evils such as evolution and the pious types at answersingenesis who are mostly on quite the opposite side from the scientists. Who else is in this sweeping conspiracy of yours? And, more importantly, why?

You said ''conspiracy'' not me.
Not wanting people to know the whole truth, is not necessarily a conspiracy, but thanks for revealing what's in your mind.

The further you go with this, the more you strain credulity.

You need to understand what is being said, and what is meant, before you
you go around predicting conclusions.


jan.

 

[Arioch]

@Jan --

But you have no evidence or explanation. What you purport only exists in your head, nowhere else. In fact it is clear that you are heavily leaning on your imagination

Hey Jan, I have a Mr. Kettle on the phone for you, he wants to talk about the color black.

 

[Jan Ardena]

@Jan --



Hey Jan, I have a Mr. Kettle on the phone for you, he wants to talk about the color black.

Arioch, do you know what the subject of that particular exchange is?


jan.

 

[Arioch]

@Jan --

Irrelevant. I see you accusing others of things that you yourself are guilty of, hence the pot/kettle comment. It doesn't matter whether they're guilty or not, you have proven yourself time and again to be a raging hypocrite.

 

[Jan Ardena]

@Jan --

Irrelevant. I see you accusing others of things that you yourself are guilty of, hence the pot/kettle comment. It doesn't matter whether they're guilty or not, you have proven yourself time and again to be a raging hypocrite.

why am i a hypocrite?


jan.

 

[NMSquirrel]

why am i a hypocrite?


jan.

have you not noticed yet that Arioch always ends his comments with an insult?
he tries to provoke an emotional reaction..

 

[Dywyddyr]

have you not noticed yet that Arioch always ends his comments with an insult?

Is it an insult if it's true? :shrug:

 

[NMSquirrel]

Is it an insult if it's true? :shrug:

does popular consensus make it true?

 

[Dywyddyr]

does popular consensus make it true?

Nope. But the facts do.
For example: in this thread alone Jan has stated that one must read the bible literally and use the words that are actually written.
And he also claimed that (because one word doesn't suit his his interpretation) that that word was a "mistake" on the part of the author and should be dismissed.

 

[Arioch]

@NM --

He is a hypocrite. He says that we should interpret the bible literally but then goes on to argue for her own personal(hardly objective) interpretation of the Genesis creation myth. He artificial make/create dichotomy exists only in his head(the linguistics definitely doesn't support it) and the whole bit about god commanding rather than creating is pulled right out of his ass(there's literally nothing in the bible to support it). This has been repeatedly demonstrated to him by multiple people using multiple links which he just shrugged off using bias as an excuse(though we all know that it's not a legitimate reason to dismiss an argument).

So how is he not a hypocrite when he's doing all of the exact same things he's criticizing other's for?

 

[NMSquirrel]

@NM --
So how is he not a hypocrite when he's doing all of the exact same things he's criticizing other's for?

i wasn't defending Jan..actually this particular point was Dyw's deviation from us talking about you..

 

[James R]

Jan:

Even with your artificial "make/create" distinction, there is no reading of Genesis that says the Sun and the Moon were revealed on the 4th day or "appointed".

Please state why the distinction is artificial, then please explain why you have not reconsidered your claim, when there is absolutely no evidence, or explanation to back it up.

Here are two relevant links:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/did-god-create-or-make
http://www.christianleadershipcenter.org/Bara.htm

Extracts:

This short study shows that there is no basis for saying that bara only means an instantaneous, out-of-nothing, supernatural creative action but that asah only means a slow, out-of-existing-material, natural process of making (under God’s providence, of course). In the creation account (Gen. 1:1-2:3) both words are used in reference to ex nihilo creation events and both are also used in reference to things God made from previously created material.
----

The major synonyms for bara’ are yatsar and ‘asah. The first one, yatsar, means “to form or fashion” something purposefully, or by design. It is the activity of the artist, as may be illustrated by the participle from the verb, yotser, “a potter.” Whereas the emphasis of bara’ is on something new and perfect that is produced, the emphasis of yatsar is that what is made is formed by design. ‘Asah, on the other hand, simply means “to do, make,” and is too broad to be helpful in this study.

What you purport only exists in your head, nowhere else. In fact it is clear that you are heavily leaning on your imagination (only) to justify your lack of belief in God. It is as if you will be forced to reconsider your position if you accept the reality of what the Bible says, so you purposely refuse to acknowledge it.

Right back at you, Jan. It is clear that you're bending over backwards to force Genesis (and the rest of the bible, no doubt) into an interpretation that that accords with your pre-existing beliefs. You are heavily relying n your imagination (only) to justify your particular brand of belief in God/gods. It is as if you wil be forced to recosider your position yada yada yada...

Magic is the art of producing illusion for entertainment purposes, using slight of hand. So no.

No. You're confusing magic with conjuring. Magic includes any art that invokes supernatural powers, including acts of gods. At least, that's the particular sense in which I'm using the term here.

I refered to ''God's'' asociates, which included ''gods''.
Scriptures inform us that there are innumerable ''gods'' involved in the working of the whole universe.

There's nothing about that in the bible.

Are you mixing and matching from several different religions to form your own idiosyncratic belief system?

How does belief in ''gods'' contradict the claim to believe in the literal truth of the bible?

I already told you. The bible repeatedly states that there is only one god.

Bearing in mind you have now been informed of the distinction between God, and god.

What's the distinction? It sounds as stretched and artificial as your purported distinction between "create" and "make".

No it doesn't. Because "make" doesn't mean "reveal" or "appoint". It means "create" or "construct" or similar.

Didn't you read the evidence?
Or doesn't it count because it doesn't agree with you?

I read the evidence. What is clear is that "make", in any language, including Hebrew, is a word with many meanings, including but not limited to "create". To rule out creation ex nihilo when you see the word "make" is to invent a distinction that doesn't exist.

Based on this discussion, why should anyone accept your guess work.

This discussion has already clearly shown up your strained interpretation for what it is. We can stop right here and my job is already done.

I am not like you.

Who are you like?

Like somebody who is not like you, I guess. :bugeye:

I don't accept it because it "backs up my belief".

While I think that the people at answersingenesis are, indeed, crackpots and religious nuts, I do not think that everything that appears on the answersingenesis site is wrong. In fact, a large problem with that site is precisely that it so often mixes fact with misleading fiction in order to advance a particular political/religious agenda.

In other words if it fits with your position you will accept it.

Didn't you read what I wrote? Look! I've quoted it for you again. Read the first sentence.

It's just not honest to simply ignore what I wrote and pretend that I didn't respond to you in detail. To actually quote my words in your reply and still produce this level of dishonest ignorance makes me less likely to think you worthy of any future responses from me. If you will not at least be honest in this kind of debate, there's not much point in my wasting my time on you.

In the current instance, I am not accepting the answersingenesis interpretation on their authority, but because it accords with the interpretations of many other people and also with common sense.

Argumentum ad populum. Well done.

I have little choice to defer to experts in the matter here, since I am not a biblical scholar. I imagine the general populace would know considerably less than I do on this subject, so this is hardly an appeal to popular opinion.

Call it argument from authority, if you want (even though it's not only that, since you missed the part about applying common sense). The question is: have you got anything better? The answer to that is, of course, no.

Your so called ''facts'' are based on religion.

No. They are based on the evidence of the biblical text. You don't have to be religious to be able to read the text of the bible and to find internal contradictions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purana

That doesn't seem relevant to a literal reading of the bible. Nor is it a scientific text.

Magic is creating illusions for the purpose of entertaining an audience.
You are using the the term ''magic'' to make the whole thing seem silly.

The whole thing is silly, but that's not why I'm using the term "magic". Supernatural acts of God are magical by their very nature.

The supernatural has nothing to do with pulling rabbits out of hats for the purpose of giving the audience a giggle.

Sure it does. Supernatural acts involve the creation of objects from nothing, appearances and disappearances, defying the laws of physics. And stage conjurers also (appear to) do such things.

What was the purpose of Jesus' walking on water, if not to give the audience a giggle?

There is no BEFORE God.
Matter exists eternally, when God interacts with it nature is born.

Where does the bible say that matter exists eternally? Where does it talk about nature being born?

Silly question. It says ''In the begining God created the heavens and the earth''. Did you miss that one.
To answer your question you need only to read any scripture, literally.

Why did God need to create the heavens when you've told me that matter already existed? What exactly was God creating when he created "the heavens"?

You said ''conspiracy'' not me.
Not wanting people to know the whole truth, is not necessarily a conspiracy, but thanks for revealing what's in your mind.

Nice attempt to dodge the issue I raised. Never mind. I didn't think you'd give an honest answer. I'll see if you do in your next response, but I won't hold my breath.

 

[billvon]

There's no reason to consider this . . . .

Then why did you ask the question "Why would someone write something so obviously important without taking the time to make sure it could be understood?" Why ask about it if you think there's no reason to consider it?

We should explore this before speculating the authors probable state
of mind.

OK. You seem to be arguing with yourself here.

This is dealing with the introduction of Adam, not the introduction of man and woman in the plural.

Hmm. It doesn't say that, and at least one part of that section directly contradicts the story in Genesis 1. If they contradict each other, how can they be the same story?

I don't find it confusing at all. It just spells out the impossible (our perspective) odds of a rich man's entrance into the ''Kingdom of God''

Agreed. It's not confusing because we understand the context, which comes from understanding the idiom at the time it was translated. That's why understanding how the translation works - and where errors have crept in - is important.

 

[Robittybob1]

Before the Sun was in existence there was the Proto-sun. The proto-sun produced more than enough light for photosysnthesis. So I see no problem that plants evolved before the Sun and the Moon was in place.

 

[James R]

What was this "proto-sun", Robittybob1?

(Welcome to sciforums, by the way.)

And was the Earth solid when the proto-sun existed?

 

[Dywyddyr]

Before the Sun was in existence there was the Proto-sun.

Which verse in Genesis references this "proto-sun", please.


What, exactly is the difference between a sun and a proto-sun?
Where did it go when the sun was put into place?

 

[Robittybob1]

What was this "proto-sun", Robittybob1?

(Welcome to sciforums, by the way.)

And was the Earth solid when the proto-sun existed?

Yes there were the planets around the Proto-sun but it was not yet the Sun as we know it. The Sun and us the Earth and our bodies are all made from the same Nebula. So there are different bits made at different times but the planets formed after the Protosun but before the Sun.

 

[Robittybob1]

Which verse in Genesis references this "proto-sun", please.


What, exactly is the difference between a sun and a proto-sun?
Where did it go when the sun was put into place?

There are untold number of stars and heavenly bodies in the Universe. Are they all mentioned? No so they are all lumped together - In the beginning God made the Heavens and the Earth. These were made ahead of the Sun and the moon as lights for the Earth.

 

[Dywyddyr]

There are untold number of stars and heavenly bodies in the Universe. Are they all mentioned?

Yep (see later).

No so they are all lumped together - In the beginning God made the Heavens and the Earth. These were made ahead of the Sun and the moon as lights for the Earth.

Supposition.
You're adding something that isn't there.

Stars and heavenly bodies actually didn't arrive until day 4:

16And 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. 17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

By the way:

What, exactly is the difference between a sun and a proto-sun?
Where did it go when the sun was put into place?

 

[Robittybob1]

Yep (see later).


Supposition.
You're adding something that isn't there.

Stars and heavenly bodies actually didn't arrive until day 4:


By the way:

You know there is a difference between a Proto-sun and a main sequence Star right they merge into each other but as I said we are all from the same nebula. We are all part of the same thing. The stars are for lights on Earth, but they were made at the begining as you know, in fact Stars they come and go as time goes on as well.
You know it is a few lines of verse it is not meant to be the full story, do you want the full story do you?