Problems with the biblical Genesis story (split)

[Dywyddyr]

You didn't answer my question.

Quite simple: there was no source stated.

Why?

Er, did you not read the quote I gave?
They were MADE on the fourth day, not "uncovered from behind a cloud".

Not in the real sense of the word, no.

Wrong. Personal definitions don't work.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/make
And from YOUR OWN LINK:

2. to produce; cause to exist or happen; bring about: to make trouble; to make war.
3. to cause to be or become;

How does that differ from "create"?

Whatever!
:runaway:

Yup, about what I'd expect from you.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

Quite simple: there was no source stated.

If the light was already there, there would be no need to state a source.
What part of ''And God said, Let there be light: and there was light'' suggests
that they were created at that moment?

Er, did you not read the quote I gave?
They were MADE on the fourth day, not "uncovered from behind a cloud".

There was already light, so He didn't need to create another light.
Why would you think He did? It makes more sense that the earth was covered from the existing light.

How does that differ from "create"?

Read the definitions again.


jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

If the light was already there, there would be no need to state a source.
What part of ''And God said, Let there be light: and there was light'' suggests
that they were created at that moment?

So god called on them, even though they weren't there to start with?

1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

There was no light until god said so.
But my congratulations. You've managed to display your ignorance once again.

There was already light, so He didn't need to create another light.
Why would you think He did? It makes more sense that the earth was covered from the existing light.

So why did he create the other two lights on the fourth day?

Read the definitions again.

I have:
Make:

2. to produce; cause to exist or happen; bring about: to make trouble; to make war.
3. to cause to be or become

Now, tell me how that differs from create instead of dodging round the question.
Create:

1. To cause to exist; bring into being. See Synonyms at found1.
2. To give rise to; produce

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/create

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

So god called on them, even though they weren't there to start with?

Where does it say (in your quote) that they weren't there to start with?

There was no light until god said so.

Yes, and on day 1 there was light.

But my congratulations. You've managed to display your ignorance once again.

Just discuss will you!
And stop with the crap.

So why did he create the other two lights on the fourth day?

Based on the the text, there was no need to ''create'' light on the fourth
day as light already existed.
Secondly, it doesn't state that He created light on the fourth day, based on the different definitions of ''make'' and ''create''.

I have:
Make:

Why did you omit the first definition?
This explains my point.

1. to bring into existence by shaping or changing material,

Now, tell me how that differs from create instead of dodging round the question.
Create:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/create

That's not a good definition.
Try this one.

...to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/create

jan.

 

[AlexG]

Jan

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: 15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 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.

Two great lights, one to rule the day and the lesser to rule the night, are going to try to maintain in any way that these are not the sun and the moon?

Do you also see the words, right there at the end "fourth day"?

Now the only question is are you going to twist and distort it or just ignore it?

 

[Rav]

Jan, of course, has a problem that is an order of magnitude bigger than the one currently being discussed, which is how to reconcile the various accounts of creation without abandoning his assertion that scripture must be interpreted literally.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Where does it say (in your quote) that they weren't there to start with?

FFS.

and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

According to that it was dark until god called for light.

Yes, and on day 1 there was light.

So there was no light until he called on it. QED.

Just discuss will you!
And stop with the crap.

Then try (really hard) to be honest.

Based on the the text, there was no need to ''create'' light on the fourth day as light already existed.

Yet he did.

Secondly, it doesn't state that He created light on the fourth day, based on the different definitions of ''make'' and ''create''.

Wrong. It states specifically that he made (created) TWO lights on the fourth day.

Why did you omit the first definition?
This explains my point.

Because the second two make it clear that "make" and "create" can be considered synonymous. A point you have yet to address.

That's not a good definition.
Try this one.

Yeah. Well done on ignoring the rest of it:

2. to evolve from one's own thought or imagination, as a work of art or an invention.

Which you dismissed.

 

[wynn]

@Signal --

Really? I thought she was. My bad.

Jan is also a he.

 

[wynn]

He apparently had light and dark, day and night, WITHOUT sources.

Well, God is the source. Thus things can exist in a kind of "quantum flux" - there and not there, the same and different ...

You claim the bible should be taken literally, but are apparently unaware of what it states. You ask for support for my point, a support which has already been given...

Jan, of course, has a problem that is an order of magnitude bigger than the one currently being discussed, which is how to reconcile the various accounts of creation without abandoning his assertion that scripture must be interpreted literally.

I think the crucial point here is that scriptures are not meant to be studied the way one would study a college textbook or a dictionary.

When it comes to scriptures, one must not presume oneself to be able to discern, on one's own, whether the text is logical, what exactly the premises are and whether they are sound and valid.

Instead, if one doesn't understand something, one should presume that one is at fault, not the scripture.

Keep in mind that for members of a religion, this is reasonable.
But it is not reasonable for outsiders.

Arguably, it is also not reasonable for outsiders to engage in reading and discussing scriptures to begin with.

Modern multiculturalist society would have us believe that anyone can read and discuss anything, but I do not think this is a meaningful outlook.


I think that the emic - etic distinction applies.
The best that we, as outsiders, can come up with, is merely a model of religious reality, and this model may, or may not be adequate.
What religiousness is for someone who is a member, is something that is simply not available for outsiders.

 

[wynn]

Does anyone care about the thesis that there are words in the current popular Bible translations that are translated inadequately?

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

Let's short-circuit this silly conversation.

Please give up your interpretation of the Genesis account, verse by verse. Just the six days of creation will be enough.

 

[Arioch]

@Jan --

You've made your point? Where?

All you've done is engage in semantic quibbles that don't even address the central point in question. Worse than that though, is that you've engaged in the very things you said other people shouldn't do. Who's trying to "read" meaning into the bible now?

 

[Ophiolite]

I've made my points, now you make yours instead of hurling insults.

jan.

Do you believe your obfuscating, cynical behaviour deserves more than insults?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

FFS.

???

and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

According to that it was dark until god called for light.

Because God called for the light to shine on the earth, doesn't mean the light wasn't there, previous to His command.

So there was no light until he called on it. QED.

It is clear that there was no light on the earth, but there is no mention of
Him ''creating'' the light out of nothing. You are assuming that this is the case.

Then try (really hard) to be honest.

YOU try to be honest.

Based on the the text, there was no need to ''create'' light on the fourth day as light already existed.

Yet he did.

There'd be no point in commanding existing light, which is good, to shine,
and then create another light from nothing. Unless of course you want it
to be nonesense and gobeldigook.

Wrong. It states specifically that he made (created) TWO lights on the fourth day.

The Hebrew word for ''create'' is ''bara'' and the word for ''make'' is ''asah''. The word used is ''asah''.

`asah aw-saw' a primitive root; to do or make, in the broadest sense and widest application (as follows):--accomplish, advance, appoint, apt, be at, become, bear, bestow, bring forth, bruise, be busy, X certainly, have the charge of, commit, deal (with), deck, + displease, do, (ready) dress(-ed), (put in) execute(-ion), exercise, fashion, + feast, (fight-)ing man, + finish, fit, fly, follow, fulfill, furnish, gather, get, go about, govern, grant, great, + hinder, hold ((a feast)), X indeed, + be industrious, + journey, keep, labour, maintain, make, be meet, observe, be occupied, offer, + officer, pare, bring (come) to pass, perform, pracise, prepare, procure, provide, put, requite, X sacrifice, serve, set, shew, X sin, spend, X surely, take, X thoroughly, trim, X very, + vex, be (warr-)ior, work(-man), yield, use.



''bara'' choose, create creator, cut down, dispatch, do, make fat

A primitive root; (absolutely) to create; (qualified) to cut down (a wood), select, feed (as formative processes) -- choose, create (creator), cut down, dispatch, do, make (fat).

Because the second two make it clear that "make" and "create" can be considered synonymous. A point you have yet to address.

You mean it doesn't support your position, but it supports mine?

Yeah. Well done on ignoring the rest of it:

Which you dismissed.

I'm using the definition that pertains to God alone.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Jan Ardena:

Let's short-circuit this silly conversation.

Please give up your interpretation of the Genesis account, verse by verse. Just the six days of creation will be enough.

1 light division between night and day

2 expanse division between the waters

3 dry land, vegetation

4 objects in outerspace become disernable from earth

5 marine life forms and flying creatures

6 land animals, man.


For the purpose of discussion, I satisfied with this interpretation of events.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Jan, of course, has a problem that is an order of magnitude bigger than the one currently being discussed, which is how to reconcile the various accounts of creation without abandoning his assertion that scripture must be interpreted literally.

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Because God called for the light to shine on the earth, doesn't mean the light wasn't there, previous to His command.

So god AND light existed together? Despite the fact it was all dark at the time? And despite the fact YOU claimed the bible must be read literally?

It is clear that there was no light on the earth, but there is no mention of Him ''creating'' the light out of nothing. You are assuming that this is the case.

So we're back, again, to plants existing before there was light.
Well done.

There'd be no point in commanding existing light, which is good, to shine, and then create another light from nothing. Unless of course you want it to be nonesense and gobeldigook.

So why did he create a second (pair of) lights?

The Hebrew word for ''create'' is ''bara'' and the word for ''make'' is ''asah''. The word used is ''asah''.

So what? I didn't quote any Hebrew.

You mean it doesn't support your position, but it supports mine?

That would be incorrect.

I'm using the definition that pertains to God alone.

Yeah right.

 

[Arioch]

@Jan --

Because God called for the light to shine on the earth, doesn't mean the light wasn't there, previous to His command.

This is all quite irrelevant really because no matter how you twist it, a literal reading of Genesis does not match what actually happened, even just here on earth. You think that the creatures really came into being in that order? If you do then you should also be aware that the bible misses quite a few steps.

Like I said though, it's irrelevant because a literal Genesis simply can not be reconciled with what we know to be true. Why else would biblical creationists be trying so desperately to discredit science?

 

[NMSquirrel]

Genesis 1 (Contemporary English Version)
The Story of Creation
1In the beginning God
created the heavens
and the earth. [a] 2The earth was barren,
with no form of life; it was under a roaring ocean
covered with darkness.
But the Spirit of God [c] was moving over the water.

heavens, plural??..And the Earth, the planet. just water in the dark..

The First Day
3 God said, "I command light to shine!" And light started shining. 4God looked at the light and saw that it was good. He separated light from darkness 5and named the light "Day" and the darkness "Night." Evening came and then morning--that was the first day. [d]

it actually doesn't posit a source..not till the fourth day, maybe the author could have put the sun and moon here..

The Second Day
6 God said, "I command a dome to separate the water above it from the water below it." 7And that's what happened. God made the dome 8and named it "Sky." Evening came and then morning--that was the second day.

water above, water below..clouds and oceans..of course science says can't have clouds without sun..(evaporation..)

The Third Day
9 God said, "I command the water under the sky to come together in one place, so there will be dry ground." And that's what happened. 10God named the dry ground "Land," and he named the water "Ocean." God looked at what he had done and saw that it was good.

11God said, "I command the earth to produce all kinds of plants, including fruit trees and grain." And that's what happened. 12The earth produced all kinds of vegetation. God looked at what he had done, and it was good. 13Evening came and then morning--that was the third day.

it says ONE place..there is evidence for pangea..one mass of land..

then the fruit and veggies, and grain

The Fourth Day
14 God said, "I command lights to appear in the sky and to separate day from night and to show the time for seasons, special days, and years. 15I command them to shine on the earth." And that's what happened. 16God made two powerful lights, the brighter one to rule the day and the other [e] to rule the night. He also made the stars. 17Then God put these lights in the sky to shine on the earth, 18to rule day and night, and to separate light from darkness. God looked at what he had done, and it was good. 19Evening came and then morning--that was the fourth day.

author should have put this above..
how about ' on the fourth day God created the weeds and thistles and all manner of annoying vegetation..

The Fifth Day
20 God said, "I command the ocean to be full of living creatures, and I command birds to fly above the earth." 21So God made the giant sea monsters and all the living creatures that swim in the ocean. He also made every kind of bird. God looked at what he had done, and it was good. 22Then he gave the living creatures his blessing--he told the ocean creatures to live everywhere in the ocean and the birds to live everywhere on earth. 23Evening came and then morning--that was the fifth day.

sea monsters? possibly wales and octopussies?..

The Sixth Day
24 God said, "I command the earth to give life to all kinds of tame animals, wild animals, and reptiles." And that's what happened. 25God made every one of them. Then he looked at what he had done, and it was good.

author got lazy on this one..he went into more detail when he created veggies..

26God said, "Now we will make humans, and they will be like us. We will let them rule the fish, the birds, and all other living creatures."

'and they will be like us' US?..plural??
and what do they mean 'let them'? like they have a choice..

27So God created humans to be like himself; he made men and women. 28God gave them his blessing and said:

redundant..

Have a lot of children! Fill the earth with people and bring it under your control.

this is where the earth got screwed..
its pure logic to infer Revelation (end times) from this one verse.

Rule over the fish in the ocean, the birds in the sky, and every animal on the earth.

again redundant..

29I have provided all kinds of fruit and grain for you to eat. 30And I have given the green plants as food for everything else that breathes. These will be food for animals, both wild and tame, and for birds.

still redundant..

31God looked at what he had done. All of it was very good! Evening came and then morning--that 1was the sixth day.

notice it says 'WAS good'.....past tense.

Footnotes:
1. Genesis 1:1 the heavens and the earth: "The heavens and the earth" stood for the universe.
2. Genesis 1:2 In. . . life: Or "When God began to create the heavens and the earth, the earth was barren with no form of life."
3. Genesis 1:2 the Spirit of God: Or "a mighty wind."
4. Genesis 1:5 the first day: A day was measured from evening to evening.
5. Genesis 1:16 the brighter. . . the other: The sun and the moon. But they are not called by their names, because in Old Testament times some people worshiped the sun and the moon as though they were gods.

left footnotes mainly because of #5

what i understand of this is that Moses had written it..yes maybe God was influencing him to write it..but it is still susceptible to the authors humanity and thereby susceptible to error..

Have you met ANY human that does not make mistakes?
Have you met ANY human that can communicate EXACTLY what he intended to communicate, without room for misinterpretation, or arguments?

sorry for the long winded post..but no one has spelled it out..every one (cept Dyw) kept dancing around the verses without actually quoting the verses..

and Arioch..my comments are just that, comments..not meant to be interpreted as authoritative, it is just my opinions..

 

[Dywyddyr]

sea monsters? possibly wales and octopussies?.

I think Wales (or at least the Welsh) would object to being called a "sea monster" (although it does tend to rain a lot there) and the plural of octopus is octopuses, octopi or octopodes.