Problems with the biblical Genesis story (split)
- Thread starter Arioch
- Start date
Yeah, but you were wrong.
The sun wasn't there.
Keep trying:
Pardon?
The Sun (and Moon) weren't formed until the fourth day:
Think physics? Really? Explain "god" with physics. Explain how god managed to speak in a vacuum.
I Who said vacuum , beside you .
I said before you just twist things . " The spirit of God was hovering over the water "
........................................................
Moon AND SUN.
Can you think , no sun ,no light ,
So how could there be light, if the sun was not there
Now you explain how can there be light without sun
Can you read?
Okay, here's a question for you then.
IF the light that appeared when god said "let there be light" was the Sun, what was the "the greater light to rule the day" that god also made on the fourth day?
Can you point out the TWO sources of light that we have during the daytime?
Any photo from Google will do as evidence.
Thank you.
@arauca --
Normally yes, that's what we would assume(though in some cases we would be wrong), however we're talking about the creation myth/s in the bible which states that light and light sources were created on different days. Light was created on day one, plants on day three, and the sun and moon(and all the rest of the stars too) on day four. The bible itself contradicts your argument.
Normally yes, that's what we would assume(though in some cases we would be wrong), however we're talking about the creation myth/s in the bible which states that light and light sources were created on different days. Light was created on day one, plants on day three, and the sun and moon(and all the rest of the stars too) on day four. The bible itself contradicts your argument.
Last edited:
Now think what is necessary to see seasons . De we need a tilt and wobble for the earth moving around the sun ?
What ever it say scientifically is not a contradiction, remember to whom was written , they did not have the same understanding as we have now.
Doesn't answer the question. Doesn't address the point.
What?
Really?
Then please reply to my post:
Scientifically what two sources of light does the Earth have during the day?
Or maybe they just made it all up and didn't care about facts, coherent arguments and continuity.
@arauca --
Wow, someone hasn't kept up with the conversation. I originally brought the whole thing up because Jan said that to understand the bible correctly we must interpret it literally. That means word for word. That means that if the bible says that the sun was created on the fourth day then it wasn't created before that. Hence light without a source.
If you're attempting to argue that the impact which created the moon is relevant because such a thing was necessary(or desirable) for growing plants then you're sadly mistaken. What matters on this topic isn't whether or not the conditions necessary for plants to grow were there, what matters is what order everything was created in. First light, then plants, then the sun.
But we already know that it didn't happen in that order. First light, then the sun, and a couple billion years later the earth and eventually(after another billion years or so maybe, don't have exact dates on that handy) plants evolved. So a literal reading of the bible is dead wrong on the matter. And actually, the fact that the bible says days(and don't pull that "well a day for god could be a billion years bullshit, it's highly off topic) means that we know that it's dead wrong because it happened over the course of billions of years.
No, they didn't, which sort of puts a knife in the back of the entire "literal interpretation" thing anyways. Of course, it also throws a shadow of doubt on the "divinely inspired" thing as well, unless you're suggesting that god deliberately allowed them to get it wrong, in which case god would be doing a bad thing, and that really doesn't seem like it would fit well in your world view.
But I digress. The point is that what you're doing, reinterpreting the scriptures in a manner other than literal, is the only way you can reconcile the bible with reality.
Wow, someone hasn't kept up with the conversation. I originally brought the whole thing up because Jan said that to understand the bible correctly we must interpret it literally. That means word for word. That means that if the bible says that the sun was created on the fourth day then it wasn't created before that. Hence light without a source.
If you're attempting to argue that the impact which created the moon is relevant because such a thing was necessary(or desirable) for growing plants then you're sadly mistaken. What matters on this topic isn't whether or not the conditions necessary for plants to grow were there, what matters is what order everything was created in. First light, then plants, then the sun.
But we already know that it didn't happen in that order. First light, then the sun, and a couple billion years later the earth and eventually(after another billion years or so maybe, don't have exact dates on that handy) plants evolved. So a literal reading of the bible is dead wrong on the matter. And actually, the fact that the bible says days(and don't pull that "well a day for god could be a billion years bullshit, it's highly off topic) means that we know that it's dead wrong because it happened over the course of billions of years.
No, they didn't, which sort of puts a knife in the back of the entire "literal interpretation" thing anyways. Of course, it also throws a shadow of doubt on the "divinely inspired" thing as well, unless you're suggesting that god deliberately allowed them to get it wrong, in which case god would be doing a bad thing, and that really doesn't seem like it would fit well in your world view.
But I digress. The point is that what you're doing, reinterpreting the scriptures in a manner other than literal, is the only way you can reconcile the bible with reality.
Address the point being made, what was the ''light'' mentioned in genesis 1.3,
if not the sun?
jan.
@Jan --
Address the point being made. What was the "great light to rule the day" in Genesis 1: 14-19 if not the sun?
Given the fact that there are sources of light other than the sun and the fact that the sun already has a specific creation date(the fourth day), your argument is wrong.
Address the point being made. What was the "great light to rule the day" in Genesis 1: 14-19 if not the sun?
Given the fact that there are sources of light other than the sun and the fact that the sun already has a specific creation date(the fourth day), your argument is wrong.
Keep trying.
I have asked YOU what the second light is. The one created on the fourth day. You have yet to reply.
Saying there are other sources of light doesn't address the point.
And ''make-ing'' the light doesn't necessarily mean the light was created, espesially knowing the meaning of the actual word used.
jan.
I've already showed you the difference between the word ''make'' and ''create
in Hebrew. That proves your idea that they were created on the fourth day wrong.
jan.
And I have pointed out that I'm not using the Hebrew text.
Unless you can quote directly the Hebrew where it also makes the same differentiation YOU are doing then your "point" is void.
What is the second light?
Bearing in mind that that the two lights made on the fourth day "divide[d] the light from the darkness".
AND that stars (of which the Sun is one) weren't made until the fourth day.
False. As explained.
@Jan --
Yes it does. Your point was something along the lines of "what was the source of the light if not the sun", correct?
For starters this makes the unsupported assumption that the light had to have a source(this is god in the bible we're talking about here). The other assumption is that the source had to be the sun. We know that there were sources of light other than the sun before it existed and after as well, so why does this source have to be the sun? It doesn't. Hell, christians are always so fond of saying that god is light, it's even in the damn bible, so why couldn't god be the source of the light?
Semantics, answer the damned question already and stop running from it like a sissy.
Yes it does. Your point was something along the lines of "what was the source of the light if not the sun", correct?
For starters this makes the unsupported assumption that the light had to have a source(this is god in the bible we're talking about here). The other assumption is that the source had to be the sun. We know that there were sources of light other than the sun before it existed and after as well, so why does this source have to be the sun? It doesn't. Hell, christians are always so fond of saying that god is light, it's even in the damn bible, so why couldn't god be the source of the light?
Semantics, answer the damned question already and stop running from it like a sissy.
Don't be silly Arioch, you're using semantics.
The thing is, you using a modern translation of the original word, and sticking
to the modern meaning because you believe it supports your position.
The only way we settle this is to go as close as possible to what was meant,
and the best way to do that is to use the original words to get the possible meanings.
The problem (for you) with this approach is, it doesn't back up your ideas, so
you disregard it.
jan.