Problems with the biblical Genesis story (split)

[Dywyddyr]

You know there is a difference between a Proto-sun and a main sequence Star

Er, my question was:

What, exactly is the difference between a sun and a proto-sun?

Hint: check the wavelength of light emitted.
Any plant life around at the time (which I to tend disagree with as likely) wouldn't be plant life as we know it.

but they were made at the begining as you know

Not supported by the text.

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?

What is your point here?

 

[James R]

Yes there were the planets around the Proto-sun but it was not yet the Sun as we know it.

What were the differences between the proto-Sun and our current Sun?

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.

How do you know?

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.

Please list the main differences.

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.

But Genesis says the stars were created on day 4, not at the beginning on day 1 (or before).

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?

Yes. Thanks.

 

[Jan Ardena]

James R,

Here are two relevant links:

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

Here are my contributions, aside from my previous ones...

http://www.thejournal.org/church-of...th-recreated-after-an-initial-creation-2.html

http://www.nils4.info/MakeOrCreate/bara.htm

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.

You forgot to add that it is a deliberate intention to create the illusion.

If you're talking about the supernatural, you most probably mean ''magik'', a
term coined to distinguish it from the illusionist.

''Crowley claimed that "it is theoretically possible to cause in any object any change of which that object is capable by nature''...

taken from

There's nothing about that in the bible.

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

No. I'm refering to claims about God.
You're the one appealing to religion.

There's nothing ''idiosyncratic'' about believing in God.

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

Where?

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

So posting explanitory links are waste of time then, unless they are from
you or another atheist in agreement?

To rule out creation ex nihilo when you see the word "make" is to invent a distinction that doesn't exist.

That's not the point. It does NOT mean that.
''Wicked'' does NOT mean ''good'', but it can be used in such a way.
No serious article would interchange the meaning without explanation.

To get a good understanding of genesis we have to accept that bara means create, asah means make.

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.

LOL! An interpretation that stands up, no need extra apps to prop it up.
For example dictionary definition, english and hebrew. You on the other hand have taken shelter of a Christian organisation who clearly need the words to be interchangable to corellate with their the universe was created in 6x24 hour days philosophy.
Your second link appears to be in favour of the real meanings of the word, more than them being interchangable.

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

Okay. LOL!!!

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.

Yes, I did read what you wrote, and I responded to it. You said...

...it so often mixes fact with misleading fiction in order to advance a particular political/religious agenda.

What you're agreeing with, is not a fact. It is an opinion, an obviously biased one at that. You have been presented with the facts, ie, dictionary definitions, english and hebrew. Plus using the correct meanings of the words, debunks the idea of a 6 day creation, young earth creationist, and the unscientific notion of the plants being created before the sun and moon.
All nonsensical claims which rely on fabrication to maintain them.

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.

Name the experts you defer to, who are in agreement with your idea.

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.

I think the authority on the subject would be who understand the language.
Even a dictionary is more of an authority on this issue, than the answersingenesis link.

I've given you the best authority, namely the definitions, so now it's for you
to step up and explain why the correct meaning do NOT stand, and why the incorrect meaning do.

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.

But you are incorporating the idea of interchanging the meanings of words, instead of reading and accepting that what is written, is what it means as per the original language. The meaning that comes from that act (with regard to said section), renders the bible nonsensical, whereas using the correct meanings doesn't.

You seem okay with this, but put of by the idea that it is not nonsensical when read with the correct meaning of the words.

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.

No they're not. There manipulations of nature, in a way that we can't percieve directly. Magic, is showing everybody a hat with nothing inside, then abracadabra, a rabbit appears out of thin air. That's not how God works in the bible.

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

It's a given.
At no time does it say that God created the material known as matter.
Everything that came about WAS material. So matter must have there to begin with.

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"?

Because without the presence of spirit, matter is essential formless, and chaotic. It explains this in the second or third verse in genesis.

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.

There's nothing dishonest in my answer.
I didn't mean or imply conspiracy.
You can't just say I'm being dishonest because your prediction was wrong, or because to you, that's what I should have meant. That's bad practice.
And insulting.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

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.

Erm, if you use the words that are written, literally, then whenever that word comes up, it must still be understood with it's originial meaning, therefore there MUST be an explanation why the words were used side by side.

To default to, 'they must be interchangable because they have similar meanings', is not acceptable when reading a serious document, unless it particularly states that words are used interchangably.


jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

bilvon,

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?

Because that particular part of the bible DOES make sense when read using the correct meanings of the words, as opposed to interchanging because you feel like it. And the whole point of reading something, is to understand it.

You're suggesting that it doesn't make sense, because we decide to interchange the words, therefore it is the fault of the author.

I don't see how the authors wouldn't have known the impact such a document would have on the world.

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?

It says; These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and [there was] not a man to till the ground.

If you notice I have conjoined these two verses, as there is only a comma which separates them, besides them being 2 different verses.

It is explaining WHEN these generations were created.
If you read the Qu'ran, there are accounts when Adam was in heaven learning the names of all the animals. The same account where Iblis (Satan) was disqualified from that place.

It goes on to say...


But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

It stands to reason, more than not, that when Adam was created, the earth was already populated.

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.

I don't get the point you're making here.
It's obvious straight off the bat, that it's an analogy.

jan.

 

[Arioch]

@Jan --

To default to, 'they must be interchangable because they have similar meanings', is not acceptable when reading a serious document, unless it particularly states that words are used interchangably.

Wait, you actually take the book of Genesis seriously? Why on earth would you do something that stupid?

 

[Robittybob1]

What were the differences between the proto-Sun and our current Sun?



How do you know?



Please list the main differences.



But Genesis says the stars were created on day 4, not at the beginning on day 1 (or before).



Yes. Thanks.

You want to know then read Life started on Planet Mercury? XXX.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=29842 and get the whole story.

 

[Jan Ardena]

@Jan --



Wait, you actually take the book of Genesis seriously? Why on earth would you do something that stupid?

You mean you don't?

Why not?


jan.

 

[Arioch]

@Jan --

Because it's quite obvious that it's a work of fiction that only has the barest relationship with reality, there's no reason for anyone to take it seriously.

 

[Jan Ardena]

@Jan --

Because it's quite obvious that it's a work of fiction that only has the barest relationship with reality, there's no reason for anyone to take it seriously.

And you're quite sure of this?


jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Erm, if you use the words that are written, literally, then whenever that word comes up, it must still be understood with it's originial meaning, therefore there MUST be an explanation why the words were used side by side.

Wrong.
And it's something YOU aren't doing either.

To default to, 'they must be interchangable because they have similar meanings', is not acceptable when reading a serious document, unless it particularly states that words are used interchangably.

Unless it states so?
Also incorrect.
It's not a dictionary.
Words are words.

 

[Dywyddyr]

You want to know then read Life started on Planet Mercury? XXX.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=29842 and get the whole story.

Wow, not only did you fail completely to answer any of the questions that you quoted you also managed to change the subject to a crank claim.
Well done.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

Wrong.

Why?

And it's something YOU aren't doing either.

Elaborate?

Unless it states so?
Also incorrect.

Why?

It's not a dictionary.
Words are words.

And when someone write a document it is usually for the purpose
of others to understand.


jan.

 

[Robittybob1]

Wow, not only did you fail completely to answer any of the questions that you quoted you also managed to change the subject to a crank claim.
Well done.

But did you read the thread in the link (I'm still unable to post links correctly as yet sorry.)?
I blame this multiquoting formating for unanswered questions. Ask a clear question you might get a clear answer.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Why?

You have been shown why.

Elaborate?

More of your dishonesty.
I have pointed out to you previously that you are claiming that the words don't mean what they do (with regard to Adam): in other words while exhorting everyone to use the "strict interpretation" (which is a false usage) YOU personally have decided that on at least one occasion your "personal interpretation" is "more" correct than the approach you are advocating.

Why?

Read the sentence underneath the comment.

And when someone write a document it is usually for the purpose
of others to understand.

Hence they will use words as they are actually used in ordinary life.

 

[Dywyddyr]

But did you read the thread in the link

You know I've read it. I stated so where you brought it up in a different thread.

I blame this multiquoting formating for unanswered questions. Ask a clear question you might get a clear answer.

A clear question?
Sure, I have a few:
From where did you get the idea to promote the nonsensical claims you make in that thread?
Are you at all aware of something humanity has at its disposal (a fairly recent invention): science?
Do you intend to use it at any point?
Why have you decided to eschew rationality?
Was it a conscious decision?

 

[billvon]

And when someone write a document it is usually for the purpose of others to understand.

Usually, but not always. Stories are often told for purposes of bragging, amusement, education etc. Indeed, the Socratic method involves stories that ask questions, rather than making others understand something.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

You have been shown why.

Not true.
You are being evasive, and dishonest.

More of your dishonesty.
I have pointed out to you previously that you are claiming that the words don't mean what they do (with regard to Adam): in other words while exhorting everyone to use the "strict interpretation" (which is a false usage) YOU personally have decided that on at least one occasion your "personal interpretation" is "more" correct than the approach you are advocating.

No dishonesty here, other than your dishonest tactic of constantly trying to label me as such.

If we read the bible literally, then we must use the words that are given, and relate to their actual meaning, as opposed to ones that suit our worldview (ahem). If ''bara'' is used side by side with ''asah'', then we should still use the original meanings. Therefore we have to work out what they mean, rather
make up our own meaning, purposely rendering the document nonsensical because it suit our whims (ahem).

Read the sentence underneath the comment.

Hence they will use words as they are actually used in ordinary life.

Irrelevant.
When writing an important document meant for other people to view, one is more likely to choose ones words carefully, and not interchange meanings expecting others to be adept in the art of mind-reading.

Try again.

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Not true.
You are being evasive, and dishonest.

More lies Jan?
I have given a link and quotes that show your strict interpretation is incorrect and so has James R.
Reported. You're obviously trolling now.

No dishonesty here, other than your dishonest tactic of constantly trying to label me as such.

Jan, I SHOWN where you have been dishonest. And it's happened in other threads where I also showed it.

If we read the bible literally, then we must use the words that are given, and relate to their actual meaning, as opposed to ones that suit our worldview (ahem). If ''bara'' is used side by side with ''asah'', then we should still use the original meanings. Therefore we have to work out what they mean, rather
make up our own meaning, purposely rendering the document nonsensical because it suit our whims (ahem).

Yet, with regard to the quotes about Adam you did exactly that: make up your own meaning and dismissed the word that was written.
I.e. dishonesty on your part.

Irrelevant.

Not so.

When writing an important document meant for other people to view, one is more likely to choose ones words carefully, and not interchange meanings expecting others to be adept in the art of mind-reading.

Except YOU HAVE BEEN SHOWN that you are wrong on a strict interpretation. This is YOUR claim ONLY, and one you have consistently failed to substantiate.

 

[billvon]

Because that particular part of the bible DOES make sense when read using the correct meanings of the words, as opposed to interchanging because you feel like it.

Then why did you replace the actual words of Genesis 2:4 with your own words? Because you felt like it?

I don't see how the authors wouldn't have known the impact such a document would have on the world.

Because as you have already admitted, they may not have known that their document would become important. It could have been created by the elder of a tribe repeating an oral tradition to his son. He may well not have known what it would become.

It stands to reason, more than not, that when Adam was created, the earth was already populated.

No. See, you've just replaced the actual words of the Bible with something new because you felt like it. Here's what the Genesis 2 ACTUALLY says on the topic:

Genesis 2:7 -Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Genesis 2:19 - And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

It is quite clear on the order - man, THEN cattle.

Hey, I'm all for reinterpreting the Bible however you like. But if you reinterpret it yourself then criticize others for doing the same thing, you're being a little hypocritical.

I don't get the point you're making here. It's obvious straight off the bat, that it's an analogy.

Nope. Most people do not know that there was a gate in the wall around Jerusalem large enough to (barely) fit a camel. Thus the analogy doesn't work, because taken literally there is no way to fit a camel through the eye of a needle.

It would be like telling a woman "you have the body of a Ruben" - if she did not know that Ruben was famous for his fat women, she would not understand the comment.