The Creation

[Buffalo Roam]

Actually, the Pentateuche, the oldest part of the Torah, is still only 3000 years old, so no, he hasn't 'forgotten' anything (in fact he's implicitly included it).

How old is the creation according to the Torah/Bible?

The world is according to the Torah and Bible if taken as literal is 7000 years old, the stories encoded in the Torah were originally a verbal history, and was codified and written down by Moses if you follow the Jewish Orthodoxy, or including the works of 5 unnamed authors if you don't.

So according to that I stated as a approximation that the creation story is approximately 7000 years old, considering writing is approximately 6000 years old, and references to Moses using earlier oral tradition and manuscripts in His compilation of the first 5 book, I gave a approximate date of 7000 years.

Yes, 3 different points of attack, Trippy, Dywyddyr, and Pandaemoni, and all becuase I stated a belief that the Bible supports science, and science supports the Bible, and all three have exhibit a extreme faith in the creation story of science even that cannot be proven as factual any more than the Creation story of the Bible.

So tell me Trippy, Dywyddyr, and Pandaemoni, where did the big bang come from?

What set it off?

Where did the materials come from to create the reaction known as the Big Bang?

And every thing you tell me will have to be accepted on faith because no one can prove it to be correct.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Actually (I just checked) and you're "supported by science" is even further off that I stated.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&version=NIV


So according to your interpretation that would be the formation of Earth followed by the Big Bang?
Way to go...

No, that is your theory, and a your attempt to put it in my posts.

Big Bang multiple dusts and gases, those dusts and gases cool, and start to form, dirtballs/planets/suns, worlds separate from the void,.......Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, the Suns that formed and ignited, (remember suns are solid) and you have the light of "day," and the darkness of "night."

The Deep can also be used to describe space a void, the deep.

Yes, you have become very amusing.

Yes, what is a day in the concept of GOD? Relativity?

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Can't play any more for now, I must attend to my grand daughters Christmas Pageant.

Merry Christmas.

 

[earth]

Buffalo Roam,

Your putting up a good fight except for one thing. The firmament mentioned in Genesis is referring to a flat earth. Your explanations doesn't fit in with the lack of knowlegde the author had about the shape of the earth. You are reduced to guessing trying to find some sort of relationship with the author's descriptions written in Genesis and the known facts. Then you present your guesswork as though it was some sort of teaching tool. We the people had to tell those holy men back then the earth was round.

 

[Photizo]

You are reduced to guessing trying to find some sort of relationship with the author's descriptions written in Genesis and the known facts.

"the known facts"?... in/by what sense are these 'facts' "known"?

 

[earth]

"the known facts"?... in/by what sense are these 'facts' "known"?

We the people had to tell those holy men back then the earth was neither flat nor the center of the universe.

 

[Dywyddyr]

So according to that I stated as a approximation that the creation story is approximately 7000 years old, considering writing is approximately 6000 years old, and references to Moses using earlier oral tradition and manuscripts in His compilation of the first 5 book, I gave a approximate date of 7000 years.

But it isn't that old. As shown by the links.
Even if we accept that creation was 7,000 ago the STORY isn't that old: and that's what you claimed -
"7000+ years ago, they knew of the Big Bang" (post 5)
"A explanation that is 7000+ years old" (Post 33)

I stated a belief that the Bible supports science, and science supports the Bible

Which has been shown to be incorrect.

and all three have exhibit a extreme faith in the creation story of science even that cannot be proven as factual any more than the Creation story of the Bible.

And you seem to conflate "accepting the current possible explanation" as faith.

[So tell me Trippy, Dywyddyr, and Pandaemoni, where did the big bang come from?
What set it off?

So you didn't bother reading the pdf I linked to?
Figures.

Where did the materials come from to create the reaction known as the Big Bang?

What makes you think that it was "reaction"? Or that it required materials?

And every thing you tell me will have to be accepted on faith because no one can prove it to be correct.

And you still mistake "okay that's the current theory theory, that's what the evidence indicates" with "I believe it implicitly even though there's absolutely no evidence".

 

[Dywyddyr]

No, that is your theory, and a your attempt to put it in my posts.

Nope, that's what the Bible says - Earth and Heaven THEN light.
And the OP was "let there be light" = "Big Bang".
So obviously you have BB AFTER the Earth arrived.

 

[Doreen]

Now as someone is question my critical thinking about this?

Now why doesn't the Genesis story of Creation, support the Scientific hypothesis of Creation? and the Scientific hypothesis of Creation not support the Genesis Creation.

Big Bang, to, Homosapian, they seem to follow the same path along the process.

LET THERE BE LIGHT!​

THE BIG BANG!​

Both involved unfathomable amounts of energy and force.

The irony works best when you think that steady state theories of the universe were the mains one 50 years ago.

 

[Trippy]

How old is the creation according to the Torah/Bible?

The world is according to the Torah and Bible if taken as literal is 7000 years old, the stories encoded in the Torah were originally a verbal history, and was codified and written down by Moses if you follow the Jewish Orthodoxy, or including the works of 5 unnamed authors if you don't.

Actually, no, you're wrong about this as well (at least if we follow the documentary theory).
4 Authors.
The Jahwist from the Southern Kingdom of Judah c 950BCE
The Elohist from the northern kingdom of Israel c 850BCE
The Deuteronomist, from Jeureusalem in c 600BCE
The Priestly source - exiled Aaronic priests in Babylon c 500BCE

And 2 editors (or redactors), the most recent of which was c 450BCE.

The Jahwist and the Elohist (so named because of their literary styles, and the names the use for the abrahamic god) are responsible for about 80% of Genesis, some/most of Exodous, and bits of numbers. The Deuteronimist is largely restricted to Deuteronomy in the Pentateuch, while the Priestly source is responsbile for (roughly) the remainder of genesis, a chunk of exodous, a substantial portion of numbers, and almost all of leviticus.

So, contrary to your assertion, Genesis is not the work of one Author,it is the cobbled together work of at least three authors.

Don't tell me you haven't bothered studying your bible either?

So according to that I stated as a approximation that the creation story is approximately 7000 years old, considering writing is approximately 6000 years old, and references to Moses using earlier oral tradition and manuscripts in His compilation of the first 5 book, I gave a approximate date of 7000 years.

No, the writing is 3000 years old.

Yes, 3 different points of attack, Trippy, Dywyddyr, and Pandaemoni, and all becuase I stated a belief that the Bible supports science, and science supports the Bible, and all three have exhibit a extreme faith in the creation story of science even that cannot be proven as factual any more than the Creation story of the Bible.

Yawn and trivially proven wrong, or does the bible have some kind of code that explains (for example) elemental abundances? Because the Big Bang Theory can.

So tell me Trippy, Dywyddyr, and Pandaemoni, where did the big bang come from?

What set it off?

Where did the materials come from to create the reaction known as the Big Bang?

These questions are simplistic and wrong headed for a start.

And every thing you tell me will have to be accepted on faith because no one can prove it to be correct.

Bull shit.
The BBT makes testable predictions, many of which have been successfully tested.
The BBT can be derived from general relativity, which has also been extensively tested and makes testable predictions.

What unambiguous testable predictions does the bible make again? Something about angels blowing trumpets?

PS. You don't know shit about what I do and don't believe, so don't think to make presumptions on my behalf.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Buffalo Roam,

Your putting up a good fight except for one thing. The firmament mentioned in Genesis is referring to a flat earth. Your explanations doesn't fit in with the lack of knowlegde the author had about the shape of the earth. You are reduced to guessing trying to find some sort of relationship with the author's descriptions written in Genesis and the known facts. Then you present your guesswork as though it was some sort of teaching tool. We the people had to tell those holy men back then the earth was round.

The Firmament mentioned is a flat earth? When the Torah was written the Authors didn't care about the shape of the earth, it wasn't germane to the purpose of their writings.

Really, now that's a first, care to expound?

Yes some people believed that the earth was flat, but when you read Genesis it makes no mention of a flat earth theory, in the Torah that point is mute, never considered, and if you can find such theory in the King James, please reference Book, Chapter and Verse, and as far as the original Greek, in point of fact the the Greek philosophers believed in a spherical Earth, it was a accepted thing in Greece that the World was round.

Aristotle, Heraclides of Pontus, Eratosthenes, Aristarchus, Archimedes, all believed in a world that was round and rotated around the Sun.

Even if the
Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa in his Learned Ignorance asked whether there was any reason to assert that the Sun (or any other point) was the center of the universe. In parallel to a mystical definition of God, Cusa wrote that "Thus the fabric of the world (machina mundi) will quasi have its center everywhere and circumference nowhere.

Seem to have a gleaning of the Theory of General Relativity.

And here is a map of the solar system from that period:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/astro/cwiu/cwiu04.htm

(from the 1539 edition of Peter Apian's Cosmographia)

If you care to note, Earth/Solis, is shown as the fourth rock from the sun.

Remember the story is older than the written Torah, which is older than Bible, and no where in the Creation Story of the Torah or Bible does it mention a Flat Earth.

It was in the dark ages through the Middle ages that the Flat Earth Theory gained acceptance, not from the Torah or the Bible.

Actually it was African Lactantius, rejected all the Greek philosophers, and in doing so also rejected a spherical Earth.

He was ignored until the Renaissance, at which time humanists revived his writings as a example of good Latin, which reintroduced, his flat Earth view, and brought about a revival of Lactantius's flat earth theory.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08736a.htm

The Catholic Encyclopedia said,
"

The strengths and the weakness of Lactantius are nowhere better shown than in his work. The beauty of the style, the choice and aptness of the terminology, cannot hide the author's lack of grasp on Christian principles and his almost utter ignorance of Scripture." Included in this treatise is a quote from the nineteenth of the Odes of Solomon, one of only two known texts of the Odes until the early twentieth century.
An Epitome of the "Divine institutions" is a summary treatment of the subject.

 

[James R]

Genesis Chapters 1 and 2 are mutually contradictory. So much for the bible.

 

[Trippy]

And here is a map of the solar system from that period:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/astro/cwiu/cwiu04.htm

(from the 1539 edition of Peter Apian's Cosmographia)

If you care to note, Earth/Solis, is shown as the fourth rock from the sun.

Oh so WRONG

Solis is the Spanish word for Sun.

That circle with a dot in the middle of it?

It's the astrological symbol for the sun.
Via Solis is another name for the plane of the ecliptic.

The symbol for the Earth is a circle with a cross in it.

That map has the earth in the middle, and the 'fourth rock from the sun' is, in fact, the sun.

 

[CheskiChips]

Reponse to 'Contradictory Chapters' Claim.

I'm going to cite Trippy's base my post on it for simplicities sake:

In Genesis 1:1-2:3

Earth
Light
Day
Heaven
Land
Grasses, herbs, and fruits
Stars
Sun and the moon
Sea life/Birds
Land life
Man and woman (at the same time, from the same dust)

However in Genesis 2:4-25 we have:
Flowering plants
Man
Animals& birds
Woman (from a rib).

The most important sentence to separate the two is Genesis 2:4
אלה תולדות השמים והארץ בהבראם - (roughly) These are the stratum (generation / orders) of the heaven and earth when they were created. This means that this all follows what it says Genesis 2:1 ויכלו השמים והארץ "And the heavens and earth were finished".

Which means that everything that's occurring in the previous chapter had already happened.

Regarding the Flowering Plants:
Genesis 1: תדשא הארץ דשא עשב מזריע זרע, עץ פרי עשה פרי למינו, אשר זרעו-בו על-הארץ
Genesis 2: וכל שיח השדה, טרם יהיה בארץ, וכל-עשב השדה, טרם יצמח

The words translated as "Plant" in both cases are emboldened - I might have missed some since the formating in this is L-->R which makes it behave strangely.

I'll note some differences of relevance.
Genesis 1 / 2 - השדה/ דשא
Why the difference?
The first one literally means "Grass" and the second means "Field". The field already existed from Genesis 1, what was added? שיח which means shrubs.

Genesis 1 is referring to the 'platform' or 'basic general construct' whereas Genesis 2 was referring to a few specifics placed on that general construct. In this case, it's reviewing the ones it feels are relevant for explaining inception of man


The claim that 'Man' follows shrubs
You've forgotten an entire line here.
Genesis 2:6 ואד יעלה מן הארץ והשקה את כל פני האדמה "And then a 'vapor' came up from the earth and water all the land"
There's an allusion here that "land" here doesn't mean the same as "earth" it uses a different word. The word it uses "האדמה" differs from "ארץ" in that it refers to something that's already received nourishment, whereas the latter could refer to something infertile. This line basically sums up the process of fertilizing the previously created land.

The creation of man
Genesis 1 says "נעשה אדם" - "Let's make man"
Genesis 2 says "ויּיצר הי אלקים את-האדם" - "Let us bring out the form of man"

This implies the base components which would be later used to form man were created in Genesis 1. Genesis 2:4 discusses the first life form which would become man kind. It's not until Genesis 2:21 that the final form of man is completed.

The claim that animals and birds come after Man in Genesis 2
Genesis 2:26 has a different purpose than the previous verses. The previous verses were describing how mankind was created. The ones following this point are describing what the purpose of those creations were / are. Their chronology is abandoned and the typical form Torah holds comes back into play. That form is: relevance in relation to the topic (in this case mankind) comes first in lists, not chronology.

Overall:
The basic mistake being made here is a misunderstanding of the form. This passage form is used frequently in the Torah; especially in introductions of people, events, or significant topics. The form is: Broad Statement - Specific Statements - Relevance.
In this case: a broad picture is painted of the overall creation - a more specific analysis of the creation in relation to man is made - the specific uses for man is described.

A lot of the misunderstanding comes from how English phrases paragraphs, sentences, indents etc etc. In Hebrew there is no such thing as a "Paragraph" or "sentence" - no periods, commas, or marks at all - spaces at some points aren't even relevant. All of the modern form comes from Massoretic scribes who wrote down the simplest way for it to be phrased. In this case the Massoretics decided not to distinguish the wording in terms of chronologies, rather, they phrased them in terms of 'scope of intent'.

 

[Trippy]

The claim that 'Man' follows shrubs
You've forgotten an entire line here.
Genesis 2:6 ואד יעלה מן הארץ והשקה את כל פני האדמה "And then a 'vapor' came up from the earth and water all the land"
There's an allusion here that "land" here doesn't mean the same as "earth" it uses a different word. The word it uses "האדמה" differs from "ארץ" in that it refers to something that's already received nourishment, whereas the latter could refer to something infertile. This line basically sums up the process of fertilizing the previously created land.

I'm going to restrict myself to this point for the time being.
I didn't 'forget' the line.
Synopsis
I was doing a breif, point be point summary of the difference in the order of creation as implied by the text used in most english bibles.

2:5 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.
2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
2:7 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.

The point being, that whether or not I left 2:6 out is irrelevant to the point that I was making.

I
The creation of man
Genesis 1 says "נעשה אדם" - "Let's make man"
Genesis 2 says "ויּיצר הי אלקים את-האדם" - "Let us bring out the form of man"

This implies the base components which would be later used to form man were created in Genesis 1. Genesis 2:4 discusses the first life form which would become man kind. It's not until Genesis 2:21 that the final form of man is completed.

Genesis 1:25-27
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and the cattle after their kind ... And God said, Let us make man ... So God created man in his own image.

Genesis 2:18-19
And the Lord God said it is not good that man should be alone; I will make a help-meet for him. And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them.

The point here being that in the first excerpt, it's quite clear that god made the 'beast of the earth' and cattle, then decided to make man, where in the second passage, god creates man, then creates animals as potential 'help-meets' for him.

But there are several good reasons I normally stay out of debates such as this.

 

[CheskiChips]

I'm going to restrict myself to this point for the time being.
I didn't 'forget' the line.
Synopsis
I was doing a breif, point be point summary of the difference in the order of creation as implied by the text used in most english bibles.

The point being, that whether or not I left 2:6 out is irrelevant to the point that I was making.

I'm familiar with a synopsis. But when the synopsis is used to make a brief statement which one of its comprising sentences negates, it fails to be an accurate synopsis. That single sentence its self was a synopsis of all the events which you claimed were left out.


I might also mention - for me, this isn't an issue of debate. It's an issue of simple literacy. There's about 7.2 million Hebrew speakers in the world. About 1/5th of them know Mishnaic Hebrew. About 1/10th really know basic Torah Hebrew grammar. Compare that to the 3 billion++ Christians, Muslims in the world who think they know what the text says.

 

[Trippy]

I'm familiar with a synopsis. But when the synopsis is used to make a brief statement which one of its comprising sentences negates, it fails to be an accurate synopsis. That single sentence its self was a synopsis of all the events which you claimed were left out.

But it's inclusion or its absence doesn't change the order the events are portrayed in.

Plants -> Mist -> Man
versus
Plants -> Man

 

[CheskiChips]

But it's inclusion or its absence doesn't change the order the events are portrayed in.

Plants -> Mist -> Man
versus
Plants -> Man

Ah, the point I was trying to make was...
Grasses, herbs, and fruits, Sea life/Birds, Land life are all summed up in that sentence..

AND THEN

A completely new 3rd iteration of the events begins. Which includes your "Animals& birds, Woman (from a rib)." Which means the previous statements and the following ones are not intended to be contiguously read.

In Genesis 1:1-2:3

Earth
Light
Day
Heaven
Land
Grasses, herbs, and fruits
Stars
Sun and the moon
Sea life/Birds
Land life
Man and woman (at the same time, from the same dust)

However in Genesis 2:4-25 we have:
Flowering plants
Man
Animals& birds
Woman (from a rib).

 

[scifes]

so;
so you can't derive the scientific theory out of genises's account of creation.

but the scientific theory comes uncontradictory and compatible with the extremely old religious text of genises..

might not be edge cutting evidence of genises being right,(because it didn't give enough details[?]), but the compatibility between the two explenations should be more than enough to put a sock in the yapping mouths of those yapping over their soap boxes:"creation contradicts science..."

 

[earth]

Originally Posted by Buffalo Roam

The Firmament mentioned is a flat earth? When the Torah was written the Authors didn't care about the shape of the earth, it wasn't germane to the purpose of their writings.

Really, now that's a first, care to expound?

Yes some people believed that the earth was flat, but when you read Genesis it makes no mention of a flat earth theory, in the Torah that point is mute, never considered, and if you can find such theory in the King James, please reference Book, Chapter and Verse, and as far as the original Greek, in point of fact the the Greek philosophers believed in a spherical Earth, it was a accepted thing in Greece that the World was round.

The Jewish Encyclopaedia describes the Firmament as follows:
"The Hebrews regarded the earth as a plain or a hill figured like a hemisphere, swimming on water. Over this is arched the solid vault of heaven. To this vault are fastened the lights, the stars. So slight is this elevation that birds may rise to it and fly along its expanse."
The book of Genesis goes on to mention lights being placed in the firmament (Genesis 1:14-17):
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. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: the stars also.
The Sun and Moon were thought to move in and out of the Firmament dome through a series of openings (reflecting the apparent movement of their rising and setting points throughout the year). This is explained in considerable detail in the Book of Enoch


At this point I must note your post is nonsense. The author's understanding as it is written in the bible was a flat earth. Here are more flat earth references in the bible. The authors didn't know the earth was round, therefore no supernatural leader guiding the penman's hand.

Isaiah 11:12
And He will lift up a standard for the nationsAnd assemble the banished ones of Israel,And will gather the dispersed of Judah From the four corners of the earth.

The four corners represent of the shape of the firmament, a flat earth.

Acts 10:9-11
About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners.

The sheet with the four corners reperesent the flatness of the earth. To Peter the earth was 2 dimensional.

Revelation 7:1
After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree.

Here we have the shape of the earth having four corners. And it is a constant theme.

Our discussion is about the bible and its creation story, not what the Greeks or Aristotle believed.

Originally Posted by Buffalo Roam
Even if the Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa in his Learned Ignorance asked whether there was any reason to assert that the Sun (or any other point) was the center of the universe. In parallel to a mystical definition of God, Cusa wrote that "Thus the fabric of the world (machina mundi) will quasi have its center everywhere and circumference nowhere.

Galileo was shown the instruments of torture and lived under house arrest for the remainder of his life because of his disagreement with the religious authorities about the universe and the earth’s place within it. Bruno was burned at the stake. We the people had to tell those holy men back then the earth is neither flat nor the center of the universe, but not without cost.