The Genesis Account and Science

[spuriousmonkey]

That's not "fact" it is "theory".
There IS NO "fact", so it is impossible to refute his "theory".
Didn't you catch that earlier?

ah yes. And plate tectonics is also theory. So are earth quakes. And evolution. I'm starting to get it now. After all i am merely morphed from goo.

Am I now under the impression by your comment that everybody agrees that Saquist is a total nutter even Saquist himself?

 

[iceaura]

Yes. I considered that, but if I were arguing Saquist's position I would note that molten rock is still rock

Hmm. I see the difficulty.

But if we are joining the argment level in this fashion, going to the mountain as it were, we might note that the Earth was not a cartoon flying squirrel, either, and so prevail.

 

[James R]

Saquist:

Watery, formless, and dark does not violate established facts. In the absent or articulate objection making use of scientific fact...

But it's all very vague, isn't it?

Watery = contains water. Yes, the Earth at the time of its formation contained water.

Formless = without form. This is slightly problematic, since once the Earth was an identifiable planet it obviously had at least the form of a sphere. But I'm sure you can read your bible in such a way as to justify "formless".

Dark. Obviously, the Sun was shining at the time the Earth settled down enough to have a solid surface, oceans and the like. But it would have been dark at night time, comparatively speaking.

So far, this all doesn't seem to advance the discussion very far. So, let's continue, shall we?

 

[SnakeLord]

Watery, formless, and dark does not violate established facts.

Neither does "covered in purple and yellow polka dots". Kindly inform me what your point and purpose here is?

It seems you just want everyone to say "yeah man, whatever you say"... but that wont lead to much of a discussion and people will invariable stop reading it.

You then mention that you wont accept science because they're not absolute concrete facts but then accept the word of an ancient book, use some dodgy pictures from dodgy websites etc and consider that perfectly fine? What the f*** is that nonsense all about?

The sun was covered already...didn't you get the memo?

According to what concrete absolute scientific fact?

 

[Ophiolite]

I'd really like to advise you all how much more sense this entire thread makes now that I have Saquist on ignore. It is peacful, and apart from the occasional ICA appearance, it is also sane. Wonderful.

And yes, Spurious, I quite agree: Saquist is a total nutter.

 

[Godless]

I bet this guy Sanquist would easily fall for the
"still earth theory" LOL... A true fundy this one!

 

[IceAgeCivilizations]

The ignore button is used by the unrealistic, how can one input cogently into a conversation which has predicates and responses based upon what an "ignored" person is saying? You might as well not participate in any thread which has recent repartee involving one of the "ignored."

It just makes you look foolish Ophi.

 

[Ophiolite]

It just makes you look foolish Ophi.

Given your loose grip on reality IAC, Being described as foolish by yourself is one of the highest compliments I can imagine.

 

[Saquist]

To Ice Age Civilizations:

It would seem at the out set that the bible does describe Abraham as tenth from Noah and I found

(A′bra·ham) [Father of a Crowd (Multitude)].

Family Origin and Early History. Abraham was the tenth generation from Noah through Shem and was born 352 years after the Deluge, in 2018 B.C.E. Although listed first among the three sons of Terah, at Genesis 11:26, Abraham was not the firstborn. The Scriptures show that Terah was 70 years old when his first son was born, and that Abraham was born 60 years later when his father Terah was 130 years old. (Ge 11:32; 12:4) Evidently Abraham is listed first among his father’s sons because of his outstanding faithfulness and prominence in the Scriptures, a practice that is followed in the case of several other outstanding men of faith such as Shem and Isaac.—Ge 5:32; 11:10; 1Ch 1:28.

Abraham was a native of the Chaldean city of Ur, a thriving metropolis located in the land of Shinar, near the present junction of the Euphrates and Tigris rivers

“To your seed I am going to give this land.” (Ge 12:7

In time a severe famine compelled Abraham to move temporarily to Egypt, and to protect his life, he represented Sarah as his sister. This resulted in Pharaoh’s taking beautiful Sarah into his household to be his wife

Historicity. Jesus and his disciples referred to Abraham more than 70 times in their conversations and writings. In his illustration of the rich man and Lazarus, Jesus referred to Abraham in a symbolic sense. (Lu 16:19-31) When his opponents boasted that they were the offspring of Abraham, Jesus was quick to point out their hypocrisy, saying: “If you are Abraham’s children, do the works of Abraham.”


Archaeological discoveries have also confirmed matters related in the Biblical history of Abraham: The geographic locations of many places and customs of that period of time, such as the purchase of the field from the Hittites, the choice of Eliezer as heir, and the treatment of Hagar.

GENEALOGY OF ABRAHAM

TERAH

NAHOR

Reumah

4 sons

HARAN

Milcah

BETHUEL

LABAN

7 other sons

Iscah

LOT

Daughter 1

MOAB

MOABITES

Daughter 2

BEN-AMMI

AMMONITES

ABRAHAM

Keturah

6 sons

Hagar

ISHMAEL

ISHMAELITES

Sarah

ISAAC

Rebekah

ESAU

EDOMITES

JACOB Sons of Jacob are shown numbered in order of birth

Leah

REUBEN

SIMEON

LEVI (3)

JUDAH

The line in which Jesus Christ was born

ISSACHAR

ZEBULUN

Dinah

Rachel

JOSEPH

BENJAMIN

Bilhah

DAN

NAPHTALI

Zilpah

GAD

ASHER

 

[Saquist]

Saquist:
But it's all very vague, isn't it?

The Bible contains the most detail in a non mythical acount of creation by God and also of the Flood that ravaged the Earth. Scientificly speaking the Genesis acount at this point gives us a discription of what a person standing on the surface of the Earth would have seen.

History shows there were various ways this account came to Noah. The first most popular is direct vision from God, Some historians relate that aside from a vision that written text or word of mouth could have easily have conveyed the creation forward in history.

Remebering we're discussing a topic of scientific levels concerning a simple and pastoral people. There observations are all that they had for investigative methods.

Watery = contains water. Yes, the Earth at the time of its formation contained water.

This may seem obvious to us but let us remember that this is a non mythical account of creation unlike the Babylonian or Egyptian accounts. There is no discriptions or metaphors or god's giving there body to become the heaven and blood to be the people as I believe one acount depicts. As a result we must view the Genesis account with the intelligent understanding of perspective. That perspective is going to be lacking in refined detail but highly observational. So does watery meet a scientific requirement? Yes...It's observational and true.

Formless = without form. This is slightly problematic, since once the Earth was an identifiable planet it obviously had at least the form of a sphere. But I'm sure you can read your bible in such a way as to justify "formless".

As previously stated. The Earth at some point in history suffered repeated impacts of asteriods and comets that contributed the vast amount of water on the Earth today. Such events would have been completely with out order or peace or serenity which is the second definition of the word "formless: with out order:" Does with out order fit a scientific conclusion of the formation of the Earth yes. While it is based on a scientific theorectial conclusion about the formation of the Earth and the solar system, disorderly would aptly describe the Early Earth.

Dark. Obviously, the Sun was shining at the time the Earth settled down enough to have a solid surface, oceans and the like. But it would have been dark at night time, comparatively speaking.

I'd have to agree. From the observers perspective there was Light before the first day began but later during the first day the Great Luminaries were created. From that perspective it would seem as though for the first time the Sun and the moon were formed. An opaque and diffused cloud of vapor ash would have settled to make out the two celestial bodies that created the very light from the begining.

So far, this all doesn't seem to advance the discussion very far. So, let's continue, shall we?

Very well on to the Second Day:

 

[IceAgeCivilizations]

So when was the Deluge, Saquist, and what was its extent?

 

[nova900]

As a result we must view the Genesis account with the intelligent understanding of perspective.

Most people do. It was simply a myth creation story like all the other myth creation stories of ancient peoples!
If not, then provide evidence to support it is not a myth!

 

[river-wind]

The Sun and moon were in outer space long before this first "day," but their light did not reach the surface of the earth for an earthly observer to see. Now, light evidently came to vivisable on earth on the first "day," and the rotating earth began to have alternating days and nights.

Again, you are disagreeing with the book you claim to follow.

Gen 1:16 And 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.

He made the two great lights and the stars on the FOURTH day; long after light and dark were divided. This is NOT what you have just said.

Learn your OWN book before you try and denounce others'. It would seem to be abad idea to make misleading statements about God's own words. Are you really going to correct God himself on how he created things? That should make for a short (and firey) disagreement.

This may seem obvious to us but let us remember that this is a non mythical account of creation unlike the Babylonian or Egyptian accounts. There is no discriptions or metaphors or god's giving there body to become the heaven and blood to be the people as I believe one acount depicts.

Your comment is in direct disagreement with the facts of Egyptian Mythology. Before you repeat this statement, I suggest that you read the legends of Osiris; lest you look foolish to anyone with even a passing familiarity with that virgin-born, man-god who was crucified to wash the sins of man away and save the souls of his people, and then came back form the dead three days later.

This has lead to some of the most outlandish twisting of logic I have ever encountered in the claim of satan as a copyist by anticipation (Justin Martyr); that Jesus' stories occured before Jesus existed because Satan can travel through time.

Horus, baptised by Anup the Divine Scribe, born in Annu, the Place of Bread, under a guiding star; seen as the good shepherd and the Lamb; who fought Set apon the mount and defeated temptation, who was called the Son of God, the savior, the Light-Bringer, the Krst.

http://members.arstechnica.com/x/riverwind/bacchus_crucified1_sm.gif


edit:removed image of Orphius/Christ; apon further research, I can't comfortably attribute origin, so I'll leave it out. this is all off-topic anyway.

 

[Saquist]

So when was the Deluge, Saquist, and what was its extent?

The bible gives us a time of 120 years from the time Noah first was told about God's intent to Flood the Earth. The nature of the flood was totally resulting in a dramatic effect on Earth's lithosphere resulting in the mountain uplifts we see on the Earth today. The effects on Earth reveal that it wasn't merely a flood.

Most people do. It was simply a myth creation story like all the other myth creation stories of ancient peoples!
If not, then provide evidence to support it is not a myth!

You think it was merely a myth of ancient people. Not I. The bible shares none the mythical signs or figures that permeate other ancient stories.

Again, you are disagreeing with the book you claim to follow.

Gen 1:16 And 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.

Not at all river-wind. I Implore you to keep up and read along for I've already expain the first occurence of Light before the first day. Did you read and understand it? While in english we use the word light as for a general meaning the translation of the Hebrew revealed that from the observers perspective that the light that was before the luminaries was difussed but that the sun it's self could not be seen. Chapter FOUR uses a different word.

Learn your OWN book before you try and denounce others'. It would seem to be abad idea to make misleading statements about God's own words. Are you really going to correct God himself on how he created things? That should make for a short (and firey) disagreement

May I suggest you calm down, sit back and listen. Language can be tricky but simply looking alittle deeper than the english reveals a host of understanding and wisdom on the subject.

Oh...and I'm not knowledgeable in all things. If you found my description of the Egyptian creation tale in error feel free to correct me, however the point is that the tale is metaphorial.

The Second "Day"

"Let an expanse come to be in between the waters and let a dividing between the waters and the waters.' Then God proceeded to make the expanse and to make a division between the waters that should be beneath the expanse and the waters that should be above the expanse. And it came to be so. And God began to call the expanse Heaven." -Genesis 1:6-8

Now some tranlsations use the word "firmament" instead of "expanse." From this the argument is made that the GEnesis account borrowed from the creation myths that represent this "firmament" as a metal dome. But even the Kign James Version Bible, which uses "firmament," says in the margin, "expansion." This is because the Hebrew word raqi'a' translated "expanse," means to stretch out or spread out or expand.

So it would seem without telling us how this happen the bible is describing waters above' had been pushed up from the earth. The birds could later be said to fly in "the expanse of teh Heaven," Genesis 1:20

 

[IceAgeCivilizations]

Now you're getting the hang of it Saquist, but you didn't answer the question, when (rough date) do you say the Deluge occurred?

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Now you're getting the hang of it Saquist, but you didn't answer the question, when (rough date) do you say the Deluge occurred?

*************
M*W: I asked you this question, and I'm still waiting for you to answer it. Why are you asking Saquist the same question if you're as all-knowing as you pretend you are?

 

[Saquist]

I feel like I'm being quized.
I'd have to look at my old time line and even then it's in BCE...(before our common era) so I don't know if everyone goes by BCE. I've actually seen BC and I'm not sure of the difference.

I prefer knowing rather than guessing so I'll be back tomorrow with the exact number.

 

[IceAgeCivilizations]

I don't think we can know the exact number, but I appreciate your optimism.

And Med Woman, you've been in on about a million conversations where I gave the approximate date, so don't be a goof ball.

 

[river-wind]

The First Day.

"Let light come to be.' Then there came to be light. And God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night. And ther came to be eveing and ther came to be morning, a first day"-Genesis 1:3,5

The Sun and moon were in outer space long before this first "day," but their light did not reach the surface of the earth for an earthly observer to see. Now, light evidently came to vivisable on earth on the first "day," and the rotating earth began to have alternating days and nights.

Apparently that light came gradulally, over a long period of time.

The Genesis rendering by translator J.W Watts reflects this when it says: "And gardually light came into existence." (A distinctive Translation of Genesis) This light was from the sun, but the sun itself could not be seen through the overcast. It was light diffused, which was indicated by a Rotherhams' Emphasized Bible.

You state here that the Sun existed before the first day of creation began; when God said let there be light, we was allowing the light of the existing sun and moon to penetrate the darkness of the shrouded Earth.

That is what I understand as your interpretation of Gen Chapt 1, from your post.

Is this wrong?


How, then, do you reconcile that idea with Gen 1:16, wherein God makes two great lights (the sun and the moon). Are you claiming that Genisis 1:16 is not describing the creation of the Sun and Moon, and 1:17 is not about thier placement in the expanse/firmament of heaven?

Gen 1:16 And 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.

Gen 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light
upon the earth,

Gen 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the
light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

I'd have to look at my old time line and even then it's in BCE...(before our common era) so I don't know if everyone goes by BCE. I've actually seen BC and I'm not sure of the difference.

Anno Domini (AD) signifies the Year 0, which at the time of the creation of the modern calendar, was considered to be the year of Christ's birth (it is now considered to have been somewhere in 3AD - 6 AD due to historical events discribed int he bible as contemporary to Jesus' birth). BC was used as a shorthand for "Before Christ"
These days, in an attempt to distance the modern chronology from it's Christian roots, people use CE and BCE: Common Era and Before Common Era, but the root of those two divisions are the very same calendar that was based around Christ's birthday, so IMO the whole arguement is silly.
AD=CE and BCE=BC.

 

[Saquist]

I don't think we can know the exact number, but I appreciate your optimism.

And Med Woman, you've been in on about a million conversations where I gave the approximate date, so don't be a goof ball.

My books gave me an exact number by the foot note does say that the exact numbers given are for benifit of the reader to get an idea of when the flood was...essentially narrowing it down to within two years...

That being said It was 4377 years ago or 2370 years before the birth of Christ, diffinitively in the Autumn of the year.

river-wind you seem to be listening well enought that was a good summary of what was posted before according to historians and theologians. What you need now is bit of paitence. I've revealed that this is a translation problem...even my bible, expertly translated puts the words in just the same way as others, because it'st the propper translation....understanding what was translated is a completely different thing and requires us to regress toward the Hebrew originally scribed. So just hang in there...

None of this is interpreting in the sense of doctrine but simply drawing on the original definitions of the words we're given. words that have more specialized meanings other than...just light. The first word meant light diffused. While I go into the Third day...if there are no objections I should be into the fourth day by the Afternoon...if work allows.