The Genesis Account and Science

[river-wind]

No. Is conclusive yet you've made no path to that conclusion

I conclusively showed that even a stopped watch is right twice a day.

then we're not on the same level....I mention nothing about deer.

It is an analogy.

metaphors aside...you've yet to prove so...disagree yes...but to put up a descive conclusion one must have decisive evidence.

You are right, I have not proved that deer and mankind are brothers. but I wasn't trying to. I was showing that something held as accurate by the scientific community was stated many gnerations ago by a culture other than the one you are supporting.

That doesn't make either of them truth, it makes them both right on one point, given a certain interpretation. As you like to then classify; everything must equally be unknown.

And the bible doesn't asy that it was created before.
So at this point we stop and address, concerning the information that I've provided that, why you think that the scripture is saying that the light was created on this day when the Hebrew says...revealed.

That's where you've snagged you "science meter" A point I've addressed in appropriate detail...and yet...we're back again as though it hadn't been addressed...

I am working with what you said already. that the Sun and Moon existed before they were revieled. That when light was created, the sun and moon were also created. Since that would mean that the earth (firmament) was not yet created, my statement was 100% accurate to your stated interpretation of the Genesis - Sun/moon (diffuse light), water, firmament, plant life, sun and moon revealed.....

Unless you plan on changing this (which I felt you had made pretty clear earlier).

In other words you don't accept what the Hebrew words mean. I find this illogical. Information is information refuting information is done with contradictory information..

I never said this. I don't want to get into difficulties with translation here, so I won't point out yet another instance where you have picked out one possible interpretation and assumed it to be truth over all others, without any logical evidence to support that choice.

You've provided...what...error from past gernations as your point of contention. I do not understand this. Knowledge is universal. Wrong and Right are clear words.If the former understanding was "wrong" then why do you cling to the first?

I ask you EXACTLY the same quesiton.

If the bible story means something else in light of today's scientific knoweldge, but the scientific knowledge doesn't change at all in light of what is in the bible, then which is more accurate to the world around us?

 

[SnakeLord]

I will do this in the format that Skin has advised, it keeps us all happy.

1) You mention the 'creation' of light first by gods plan. I wouldn't call god or 'creation' scientific, would you? By the by you go on to mention billions of years when that is not implied or attested to in the genesis account. The bible goes on to say that 1 day to god is 1000 years to man which would have made the 'creation' of this light less than 10,000 years ago - (which is why there are young earth creationists). There is nothing, unless you can show otherwise, that leads anyone to believe in a 'creation' of this universe or anything in it as being "billions of years ago". Your claim is unscientific.

2) You claim that formless, waste, watery, dark etc are "perfect scientific descriptions of an early earth". Kindly provide sources for this claim.

However, I am glad that you finally provided something simple that I asked for pages ago. We could have saved all this effort if you put your ego aside and just answered straight away. I forgive you. Now.. I would ask what exactly leads you to the implication in a "billions of years" old earth as far as genesis is concerned - especially given later statements that provide man with the man to god time scale. Furthermore I would ask for scientific, (after all that's what you're claiming it to be), backing concerning an early earth.

Many thanks.

P.S 3) You state that "The bible is the only creation story that tells of the creation of the universe". This is incorrect. There are literally hundreds of creation stories. At this point how do we decide that the Epic of Creation is less worthy than the biblical account that is based upon it? If you're going to claim it's because it's "scientific", then you'll have to show how, and remove all gods in the process considering belief in god is far from scientific.

P.P.S You said:

"You've proved that there is a river (metaphorically) between Gilgamesh and Noah....Now you must prove which direction that river ran".

The answer is south. It ends up in the Persian Gulf. This can be seen in the Genesis account that you hold so dear and scientifically.

P.P.P.S You go on after my post to say "The bible doesn't say. To say so would be to interpret"

The bible does not say the earth has existed for billions of years. How do you allow yourself to add and interpret to your hearts content but don't allow others to do the very same thing?

 

[SkinWalker]

You stated in the original post of this thread, that your intent was to "illustrate biological progress of life on Earth by a full review of the Genesis Account" and that several premises made in the Genesis account (summarized above) is "scientifically sound."

So everything that I've mentioned with regard to the cultural mindset and attitude of the authors of Genesis and the analogy that river-wind made was a valid criticism of your methodology. You can either accept it and deal with it, or you can avoid it. One makes you look like you are genuinely interested in discovery and investigation as well as giving the appearance of objectiveness. The other gives the appearance of being a fool.

Your point of contention is that the authors of Genesis were accurate in scientifically describing creation. Therefore, the criticisms of myself and others are very much within the tangent of the thread.

 

[Saquist]

I conclusively showed that even a stopped watch is right twice a day.

refrenced: TWSCOTT

It is an analogy.

You are right, I have not proved that deer and mankind are brothers. but I wasn't trying to. I was showing that something held as accurate by the scientific community was stated many gnerations ago by a culture other than the one you are supporting.

that would explain why I didn't understand it's relevance on this thread.

I am working with what you said already. that the Sun and Moon existed before they were revieled. That when light was created, the sun and moon were also created.

The bible doesn't say. To say so would be to interpret. It doesn't say when the sun was created only when they were revealed. "Light" can mean any sources of light...we can only conclude per the information provided that it was there before the Fourth day.

Since that would mean that the earth (firmament) was not yet created, that my statement was 100% accurate to your stated interpretation of the Genesis - Sun/moon (diffuse light), water, firmament, plant life, sun and moon revealed.....

WHAT!!!

If the bible story means something else in light of today's scientific knoweldge, but the scientific knowledge doesn't change at all in light of what is in the bible, then which is more accurate to the world around us?

I'm not sure I'm understanding the flow from one sentence to another.
Are you asking which is more accurate?

 

[Saquist]

You stated in the original post of this thread, that your intent was to "illustrate biological progress of life on Earth by a full review of the Genesis Account" and that several premises made in the Genesis account (summarized above) is "scientifically sound."

I don't follow where you got "cultural" considerations from.
If you're splitting hairs you may continue to do so for the sake of your arguement. Litteralness is not lost on me, just classified as relevant or not.

But yes...as that was not my purpose why would I entertain it seeing as it is truely a tangent. If not by literralness then by my entire arguement. I've never mentioned...anything along these lines.

It is your choice to bring culture into considerations I doubt I will disagree with anything you have to say...but in the end we'll still be considering whether or this information was provided but not understood.

Which you know was my purpose from the outside.

 

[river-wind]

WHAT!!!

That was my understanding of what you said before. Appearently, I was wrong. Unless I am the only one that is confused by teh difference between what is writen in the bible in front of me and how you understand it, I think you might need to go back and start over - I don't think you were clear enough in your explination of your ideas.

I'm not sure I'm understanding the flow from one sentence to another.
Are you asking which is more accurate?

I am asking this:

Let's say that I have two boxes that each weigh .1 kg when empty. Someone puts an unknown amount of wieght into each box.
If I put the first one on a scale, it reads 50.1kg.
If I put them both on the scale, It reads 50.2 kg.

How much stuff (in kg) does the second box hold?

 

[Saquist]

.1 more...

 

[river-wind]

Not "how much does the second box weigh?" (.1kg); how much does what's *in* the box weigh?

 

[Saquist]

.1 more than the other box holds.

 

[river-wind]

wow. no.

edit:
I have two boxes that each weigh .1 kg when empty
If I put the first one on a scale, it reads 50.1kg. weight of box contents = 50.1 - .1(the box itself)=50kg
If I put them both on the scale, it reads 50.2 kg.


weight of Box 2's contents=total wieght - weight of box 1's contents - weight of box 1 - weight of box 2
x=50.2 - 50 - .1 - .1
x=0


My point is this:
If the biblical understanding of creation does not effect the scientific understanding at all, then it does not have a use in the debate at hand.

If (scientific theory of creation) + (biblical theory of creation) = (scientific theory of creation), then adding the bible into the picture is simply wasting everyone's time.

Are you trying to show the accuracy of the Bible to current scientific understanding for a reason? Or is this just for the interest of knowledge?

 

[Ophiolite]

Untill you grasp the bibles meaning of formless in fact a meaning supported by Webster and Merriam and not your own what is there left to say...You're grasping at straws.

Now Saquist, my dear, dear friend. I'll happily set aside the fact that we are working with English translations of Genesis, and that my ancient Hebrew is as effective as my modern Urdu. I'll comply with your fixation on Merriam Webster, though I should much prefer the Oxford.

form·less
Function: adjective
1 : having no regular form or shape
2 : lacking order or arrangement
3 : having no physical existence

[Source: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/formless]

Let us go through these systematically dear Saquist. Try to stay with me. I shall make it as simple and painful (excuse me, I mean painless) as possible.

1: having no regular form or shape
Clearly the proto Earth had a very distinctive form. It was already an oblate spheroid. In simpler English, that is to say its form was that of a somewhat flattened ball. How, my illustrious Saquist, could a planet, in the form of a flattend ball, be described as formless? To make such a claim in not just unscientific, it is illogical. More than that it is wrong. There are some who might say that to make such a claim is evidence of some imbalance of brain chemicals.

2 : lacking order or arrangement. It is true that the early Earth was more chaotic than the present Earth, but it was not without structure. Even before it had become a sphere it was differentiating. Temperatures, already high in the solar nebula, were raised by fission of short lived isotopes. Consequently the accumulating mass was already segregating into an iron nickel core and a rocky, molten mantle.

3 : having no physical existence I await with unimaginable excitement to see how you explain that the early Earth had no physcial existence!

So, using your preferred definition of formless, I have herein demonstrated in a straightforward, absolute, definitive manner that the early Earth was not formless.

The audience awaits your shameless wriggling with a mixture of pity, apathy, distaste, whimsy and inevitability. Undoubtedly you are providing the best entertainment value since Happeh.

 

[Saquist]

That doesn't make either of them truth, it makes them both right on one point, given a certain interpretation. As you like to then classify; everything must equally be unknown.

Inaccurate: Independent Consensus can establish fact, known as accepted fact. Trial and Error establishes FACT, Truth can be derived from FACT.

I am working with what you said already. that the Sun and Moon existed before they were revieled. That when light was created, the sun and moon were also created. Since that would mean that the earth (firmament) was not yet created, my statement was 100% accurate to your stated interpretation of the Genesis - Sun/moon (diffuse light), water, firmament, plant life, sun and moon revealed.....

You loose me...firmament? What do you mean by firmament?

Unless you plan on changing this (which I felt you had made pretty clear earlier).

I hope so...

I never said this. I don't want to get into difficulties with translation here, so I won't point out yet another instance where you have picked out one possible interpretation and assumed it to be truth over all others, without any logical evidence to support that choice.

There was no choice to make. The Hebrew had a specific meaning. This often happens in translation when one language is more specific than another in context or terms. For the sake of comprehension words are changed from other than they would be in the Hebrew. Basicly English uses external modifers while Hebrew often uses prefix modifiers adding those words may distort the meaning of the entire sentence or may appear unnecessarily repetitous in the middle of an English sentence.

Even my Bible, strenuously translated over decades choose to represt the fourth day in such a way because its the most clear way to represent what is written in Hebrew. One just has to be told to remember "this account is from the point of view of a pastoral observer"

The text even shows that this was a slow process. Who knows how long they're suggesting but it does mean gradual revealing of "light" again as though from behind a cloud mass.

I have run into oddities many many times in doing the translation myself. One of the most intresting was when I was attempting to translate JOHN 1:1.
Catholics belive in the Trinity. I wanted to understand why they believed this.

Little did I know that scripture litterally says when translated
"And the word was, and the word was God." The word being Jesus.

So I jumped into the Greek. The easist thing to do in translating is comparison. It alluded me for awhile untill I expanded my search. The words for god and God are different in Greek. That was easy to see...but I found something else. There was no translation for "a"...

That's not uncommon in languages. I searched every known occurence or uses of "a" in the Greek scriptures and found no Greek equivilent. Bible translator add the word for grammar sake in English. In Greek it's understood becuase it's a different word for a lesser God. Litteral translators for some reason decided not add "a" for some reason when they had every where else.

Translation is like looking for the odd man out. Which thing is not the same. Now...I'm not well versed on ancient language grammar and therein lies my shortcoming...I must rely to some extent others understanding of Hebrew and Greek grammar.

 

[Saquist]

wow. no.

Now you know why I chose drafting over electronics...maybe I shouldn't have. I might have a better grasp of this kind of thing.

edit:
I have two boxes that each weigh .1 kg when empty
If I put the first one on a scale, it reads 50.1kg. weight of box contents = 50.1 - .1(the box itself)=50kg
If I put them both on the scale, it reads 50.2 kg.

I'll show you where you lost me from the begining. (This is also why I abandon learning basic)

If I put the first one on a scale, it reads 50.1kg. weight of box contents = 50.1 - .1(the box itself)=50kg

the contents weigh 50.1? Or both weigh 50.1? Or does the contents wiegh 50 kg and the box is .1kg?

weight of Box 2's contents=total wieght - weight of box 1's contents - weight of box 1 - weight of box 2
x=50.2 - 50 - .1 - .1
x=0

Aye que malo...I don't think I understood any of that...are you using "-" as division or subtraction signs?

My point is this:
If the biblical understanding of creation does not effect the scientific understanding at all, then it does not have a use in the debate at hand.

what do you mean by "effect"?
what effect were you looking for?

If (scientific theory of creation) + (biblical theory of creation) = (scientific theory of creation), then adding the bible into the picture is simply wasting everyone's time.

The fundalmental realization is that the bible beats science to the point. Your time is only wasted, if you didn't believe it was true in the first place.

Are you trying to show the accuracy of the Bible to current scientific understanding for a reason? Or is this just for the interest of knowledge?

Well unlike other creation stories the bible isn't figurative in the description. It tells exactly what happens and in a certain order. As before it's the only story that tells the creation of the universe at all.

The purpose of the thread was prompted by Wiz4rd and Ophiolite and others that say that the genesis account had flaws. I knew I had knowledge they did not have and sought to inform them.

Ophiolite called preaching...but that's just a way of relating information.

 

[Ophiolite]

The purpose of the thread was prompted by Wiz4rd and Ophiolite and others that say that the genesis account had flaws. I knew I had knowledge they did not have and sought to inform them.

I don't know about Wiz4rd, but I'm still waiting for you to reveal some knowledge I don't already have. (As opposed to idle speculation.)

Ophiolite called [that] preaching...but that's just a way of relating information.

When you do it with a closed mind and a self righteous attitude then it is preaching.

 

[river-wind]

the contents weigh 50.1? Or both weigh 50.1? Or does the contents wiegh 50 kg and the box is .1kg?

The contents of the box are 50.1 (subtract) .1, or 50kg even.

Aye que malo...I don't think I understood any of that...are you using "-" as division or subtraction signs?

subtraction. An honest question, is there somewhere that the dash ('-') is used for division? I have never seen that.

Well unlike other creation stories the bible isn't figurative in the description.

How do you know this?

It tells exactly what happens and in a certain order. As before it's the only story that tells the creation of the universe at all.

And as before, you lack of familiarity with creation stories other than the one you believe in has led you to an incorrect conclusion. You statement is wrong. Who ever told you this was similarly wrong, or was lying. If you came to this conclusion by yourself, then you should read more of that which is outside your area of belief.

The purpose of the thread was prompted by Wiz4rd and Ophiolite and others that say that the genesis account had flaws. I knew I had knowledge they did not have and sought to inform them.

Ophiolite called preaching...but that's just a way of relating information.

Any time you enter into a conversation you must expect some back and forth. Ophiolite calls it preaching because you are simply talking without listening to what others have said in reply. If you want to communicate that way, then publishing an article in a magazine would be more effective - it is a form of communication geared towards longer blocks of text by a single author. It is designed as a one-sided conversation.

However, a web forum is designed as a written version of a spoken conversation. It uses shorter bits of text, broken up by chances for others to discuss, argue, bring up counter-points, or even agree with the main author. By posting in a web forum in small blocks at a time, you are inviting response. And since you are speaking from a number of uncommon standpoints (your reading of the order of creation, your understanding of the scientific theories you try to match Genesis to), you should expect a lot of argument.

You *are* presenting something that is outside the comfort zone of the people here. However, just because it is different doesn't mean that it is correct. In order to convince the people here that what you say is more than just the opinion of one man (as Dawkin's ideas on evolution are the opinions of one scientist), you need to back it up. With a lot more than a quick glance toward similarities.

Look at the root meaning of the word 'extraordinary' - that which is outside of the ordinary - fits what you are trying to do here. To tie what you see as the best translation of the ancient Hebrew to modern scientific theory, when the ordinary thought is that they do not match up. In order to change our core understanding of science, religion and culture, all at the same time, you will need to present us with similarly extraordinary evidence to back up your claims.

 

[Saquist]

subtraction. An honest question, is there somewhere that the dash ('-') is used for division? I have never seen that.

I've used the wrong word..."not division" Is it being used to seperate one thought as though a hyphon or is it a subtraction sign?

was that correct?

 

[river-wind]

Correct (subtraction). As the inverse of addition:

1+1=2
2-1=1

 

[SnakeLord]

I see basic mathematics is not your strong point. Still, we all have different talents and abilities.. yours seems to be the ability to avoid posts. Mind getting round to mine whenever you've got a moment? Cheers ears.

 

[river-wind]

To be fair, Saquist may have studied basic math using non-Roman notation (we do know that he's at least not a native English speaker), and as such the dash may indeed not equate to subtraction for him.

 

[mikenostic]

Why assume God would want to "dumb down" the events and some of them describe completely incorrectly?

I couldn't have said that better myself. I also interpret it as God thinking that we are too 'stupid' to understand the history of the earth and universe...even though he calls us his greatest creation...a being he created to have the intelligence that other animals don't, to be able to reason with him. And if I'm not mistaken, he supposedly thought enough of us to instruct the angels to worship us (which was the beginning of Lucifer's exile), yet he can't have the common courtesy to tell us where we came from other than a vague explanation in the first book of the bible?

Many things actually...and the problems are usually with our current day translators that can sometimes fail to put the propper significance on words that are translated..
Translation is a science of Grammer and it's violated many times in the bible. Fortuantly there is the original or as close to orginal scrolls to retranslate propperly and thankfully neither language is truely dead in meaning. It alows us to go back and correct some oversites and misunderstandings.

Exactly, which is why I'm curious as to why an OMNIPOTENT deity would sit back on his ass and allow fallacies and mistranslations in the first place. Do you not agree that the Bible has been mistranslated, at least once, in the past??? If God loves his children and wants them to enter into the kingdom of heaven, he's damn sure going about it the wrong way.

And let's talk about one event in Genesis in particular, the flood and Noah's Ark. You do know that even if all the ice in the world melted, the sea level would only rise about 80 feet? Far short of the 5+ miles needed to cover the summit of Everest. And if this flood did cover the whole earth, what about the Western Civilizations (Inca, Maya, Aztec, other South American civs) that prospered before during and after the times of the flood of Noah?
And it is also known that the story of Noah's ark is EERILY similar to the flood of Gilgamesh.