The Genesis Account and Science
- Thread starter Saquist
- Start date
I'd say no. The bible doesn't direct us to believe that all Mountains are socket pedestals. There are ranges that have worn down like the Ozarks and the Urals that I suspect don't go as deep.
One aberations doesn't make the theory wrong. In fact from what you have shown in the graph it leads me to suspect that North America's plains are thicker than normal and higher than the surrounding area.
We do know there has been several uplift events over Earths time and the Bible makes some mention of when those events occured. While were talking Earth's most earliest history in it's foundation we are not able to accuately deciper features on the Earth that may have different causes and there for unrelated to Genesis uplift, the Deluge Uplift, or other celestial events that occured in the bible that could logically effect the surface of the Earth.
But that's a tangent. For now it's evident that the mountains do general have much deeper roots than the sea floor and moderately more than continental areas. It is a foregone conclusion not to resistrict mountain formation to one type of event.
river-wind
Valued Senior Member
IAC:
Psalm 104:5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.
(Saquist: intersting translation. Mine's from the KJV, as it's more common. What translation is that? New American Standard?)
IAC:
You need to go reference check. Do you mean:
104:6 Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains.
Certainly does seem to. Of course, since the flood story existed before Psalms would have been written (note the past-tense), this is hardly surprising.
Psalm 104:5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.
(Saquist: intersting translation. Mine's from the KJV, as it's more common. What translation is that? New American Standard?)
IAC:
You need to go reference check. Do you mean:
104:6 Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains.
Certainly does seem to. Of course, since the flood story existed before Psalms would have been written (note the past-tense), this is hardly surprising.
river-wind
Valued Senior Member
Ok, I'd agree with everything regarding the dryland/crust thickness comparison as "generally accurate" but again, where is that claim in the Bible? Where is it stated that mountains are these pedestals?
Last edited:
what do you mean claim.
Perhaps you have a different understanding as to what the bible writer means about.
Foundation of the Earth.
Corner Stone
Socket Pedestal.
There is an implied meaning here. God is speaking to Job with a big of anger. Job has seen fit to tell him certain things and God is talking down to Job...
"Who is this that is obscuring counsel?!
By words without knowledge?!
Gird up your loins, please like an able bodied man and let me question you and you inform ME.
Where did you happen to be when I founded the Earth"
that was verses 1-5 of Job 38.
When we attempt to understand the bible we associate meaning. God is talking of the Earth.
He speaks of a cornerstone (a supporting stone)
Socket pedestals and foundations.
The Earth doesn't have a litteral slab of concrete. But we can equate the meaning of corner stone and foundations and pedestal to the context of what God is talking about. And he's speaking of the Earth.
If you have another idea about what these passages are refering to is it logical to suggest they are anything other than what the appear to be?
simple metaphors that describe roots supported by a base..."socket pedestals"
If you're saying that you need for the bible to say this directly to belive it then you will not believe it. You're asking God to be more specific and convey knowledge to mankind that would affect our development that has no bearing on the bibles true purpose, which is to give hope to mankind if he listens.
So we should move on if you do not find this a logical conclusion of the scriptures.
Perhaps you have a different understanding as to what the bible writer means about.
Foundation of the Earth.
Corner Stone
Socket Pedestal.
There is an implied meaning here. God is speaking to Job with a big of anger. Job has seen fit to tell him certain things and God is talking down to Job...
"Who is this that is obscuring counsel?!
By words without knowledge?!
Gird up your loins, please like an able bodied man and let me question you and you inform ME.
Where did you happen to be when I founded the Earth"
that was verses 1-5 of Job 38.
When we attempt to understand the bible we associate meaning. God is talking of the Earth.
He speaks of a cornerstone (a supporting stone)
Socket pedestals and foundations.
The Earth doesn't have a litteral slab of concrete. But we can equate the meaning of corner stone and foundations and pedestal to the context of what God is talking about. And he's speaking of the Earth.
If you have another idea about what these passages are refering to is it logical to suggest they are anything other than what the appear to be?
simple metaphors that describe roots supported by a base..."socket pedestals"
If you're saying that you need for the bible to say this directly to belive it then you will not believe it. You're asking God to be more specific and convey knowledge to mankind that would affect our development that has no bearing on the bibles true purpose, which is to give hope to mankind if he listens.
So we should move on if you do not find this a logical conclusion of the scriptures.
river-wind
Valued Senior Member
Saquist said:
So you are saying that by using completely subjective methods, you can find a connection between what was written and what is now known, but that no objective connection exists? That only via your subjective understanding of what you've read does the correlation hold?
You can't use the same dataset to both create and test your idea.
The only objective statement is of the Earth having a corner stone. It is a metaphorical refrence. But the "Earth" would be the objective subject we're refering too.
Once we establish that the Earth is the subject at hand drawing like denominators brings us to an obvious conclusion. In english we call this drawing context clue.
It is perfectly acceptable in writting and reading comprehension. Using the facts at had can you associate a different context?
Keep in mind this isn't purely a scientific experiment as some of our variables do not conform to scientific definitions. It's therefore logical to draw conclusions in terms over meanings and methaphors...that which science has no domain over.
Once we establish that the Earth is the subject at hand drawing like denominators brings us to an obvious conclusion. In english we call this drawing context clue.
It is perfectly acceptable in writting and reading comprehension. Using the facts at had can you associate a different context?
Keep in mind this isn't purely a scientific experiment as some of our variables do not conform to scientific definitions. It's therefore logical to draw conclusions in terms over meanings and methaphors...that which science has no domain over.
river-wind
Valued Senior Member
You can show this objectively?
Where is the context clue in the quote you provided? I don't see one.
http://www.csupomona.edu/~lrc/crsp/handouts/context_clues.html
I *do* see the use of archetectural metaphors that would have been popular at the time; that the pedestal of the earth is most likely not really a slab of concrete or a massive concrete pillar. However, I would love for some context clues to point towards a spherical earth, mountains or mountain roots, or the core as the cornerstone. I do not see any; you appear to be making those connections yourself based on personal non-objective interpretation.
I agree that the quotes could be interpreted in the way you are attempting. But it could also mean that the earth is flat plane held up by pillars at the four corners. As it was for hundred of years. It made perfect sense to them, based on the same text you are now using to justify a spherical planet; that the earth was flat, held up by pillars, and that you would fall off if you went too far.
How could they have missed such “an obvious conclusion”? Were they all fools?
/me points at the thread title.
Last edited:
Context clues also point subject matter aswell not only vocabulary you do this when you solve word problems whose information is incomplete.
I must give you commedation for a very logical post. It was fortright and objective. Ultimately you may be right that I'm adding my own knowledge to the passage in the bible.
However...while it wouldn't be wrong to assume that the people thought the Earth was flat and supported by columns we can not "objectively" assume that the bible is making the same assumption when it's not made that point.
Infact river-wind it says just the opposite.
Isaiah 40:22
"There is one dwelling above the circle of the Earth.." This scripture just implies the true shape of the Earth but between Issiah and Job we get the true sense of the Earth a that they were not shown a flat Earth.
The very man that said that Earth had a foundation, a corner stone and socket pedestal then says...
Job 26:7 "He is stretching out the north over the empty place, Hanging the earth upon nothing."
So Job and Isaiah had a complete view of the Earth...
If the Earth is hanging upon nothing
If the Earth is indeed circular "minus the obvious geometric error"
If the Earth does indeed have a foundation.....
Is Job saying...in the most simple terms that the Earth as you illistrated...was held up by pillars. No he said it was hanging. Hanging means no support from below and below will refer to what is below the circle. Further he says there is also nothing above it.
So what shape do you have that's supported by neither anything from below or above but does have a foundation? A planet. A sphere is the only object that fits that description.
Therefore the socket pedestals must be a metaphor for the roots of mountains. Job and Isaiah make descriptions that may seem vague singularly but the continuity of the bible makes it litteraly impossible to use there statements singularly. Together their statements reveal that bible did indeed
comprehends and know that the Earth was not a flat circle with support not from the outside but a sphere...it's support from within, the only way a circle could support it'self.
How long before the bible was written did greeks using scientific method not only find the earth was round but even rather accurately calculate the circumference? Where is the biblical passage that gives the circumference of the earth I'm sure god must know it right.
Look up in the day or night sky do you see any big string or chain? next
As said a circle is not a sphere. next
what are you standing on?
These passages show nothing more than someone trying to explain the visible world.
No chain the earth is not hanging.
look out to the horizon the radius of your vision makes a circular line of sight out to the horizon-the earth is a circle
You are standing on solid ground-a foundation
You just said above that he said it wasn't hanging.
In which verse does he say this specifically?
100% subjective interpretation, show me the verse where he says the earth is a spherical planet.
Poppycock, why do you need to go to such great lengths to render the words you are looking for then......because they aren't there. See above
Not subjective at all. It's extrapolation and given three different criteria to make a conclusion it's anything but subjective at this point. I'm sorry your post was completely lacking in wisdom and discerning ability.
I commend your ability to be litteral but obviously you've missed the entire point the bible was conveying. Scientificly you're right on but you've not solved the missing portion you're left the equation unanswered.
Even as you could not disprove you attmpted to. That was subjective to evidence available and countrary to what methaphors are. That's why I say you missed the point.
I'm sorry Socket but if this is your attitude then I'd leave the great mysteries of science, culture and history for those with more reaching problem solving abilities. Most certainly you don't belong on this thread.
Take note of this though. Your sudden appearance on the thread leads me to conclude that you've been reading to some extent. It's also apparent that you were threaten by the logic problem I presented, which in turn means that you saw the truth in the statement.
Your need to regress back to pure imperical data and a pure academic argument means that you can't prove the bible means what you think it means. So literal is all that you have to rebut with when it's known that litteral and metaphors have no commonality in terms.
You're no detective because with any riddle "the obvious answer is rarely the correct answer."-Batman
It was a good try and thank you for reavealing so much of what you really thought.
I commend your ability to be litteral but obviously you've missed the entire point the bible was conveying. Scientificly you're right on but you've not solved the missing portion you're left the equation unanswered.
Even as you could not disprove you attmpted to. That was subjective to evidence available and countrary to what methaphors are. That's why I say you missed the point.
I'm sorry Socket but if this is your attitude then I'd leave the great mysteries of science, culture and history for those with more reaching problem solving abilities. Most certainly you don't belong on this thread.
Take note of this though. Your sudden appearance on the thread leads me to conclude that you've been reading to some extent. It's also apparent that you were threaten by the logic problem I presented, which in turn means that you saw the truth in the statement.
Your need to regress back to pure imperical data and a pure academic argument means that you can't prove the bible means what you think it means. So literal is all that you have to rebut with when it's known that litteral and metaphors have no commonality in terms.
You're no detective because with any riddle "the obvious answer is rarely the correct answer."-Batman
It was a good try and thank you for reavealing so much of what you really thought.
Last edited:
So rather than address any of his points directly in conversation manner (this is a discussion forum after all), you'd rather dismiss them pejoratively and ignore them altogether. I'd say it is you that doesn't belong in this thread, regardless of whether you began it or not.
Please have discussion rather than simply trolling for pejorative riposte or I'll close it.
Please have discussion rather than simply trolling for pejorative riposte or I'll close it.
ah...if only he had some points to actually address.
You can't force me address his failure to acknoldge the metaphors in the bible. That's his failing. Not to mention that it is constantly done in your "evolution" thread.
I see that thread is still lively as ever with nary a threat of closure.
I suspect that whether you see it or not is not of any real importance to you...closing the thread will only reveal your inability to be objective due to what you obviously disagree with.
Close or leave the thread. It doen't matter. Thus is your power to do so if you have it. How you use your power is entirely up to you. Supress or express yourself that is also your choice.
It will be intresting to observe which you chose.
You can't force me address his failure to acknoldge the metaphors in the bible. That's his failing. Not to mention that it is constantly done in your "evolution" thread.
I see that thread is still lively as ever with nary a threat of closure.
I suspect that whether you see it or not is not of any real importance to you...closing the thread will only reveal your inability to be objective due to what you obviously disagree with.
Close or leave the thread. It doen't matter. Thus is your power to do so if you have it. How you use your power is entirely up to you. Supress or express yourself that is also your choice.
It will be intresting to observe which you chose.
river-wind
Valued Senior Member
First off, I too must thank you for your even-headedness and continued interest. I am enjoying the conversation greatly, and I thank you for the time you are putting forward.
However, so would this:
from http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/ThreeTieredUniverse.htm
As Sock puppet path has pointed out, the earth having a 'foundation' can easily be determined by a stone-working society, without having divine knowledge. Everything that they build must have a solid foundation, or it falls over. If, then, God has created the world, then certainly he had to create a foundation first; or else the world would fall over.
very true. It is important to divide the intend of the author from the interpretation by the reader.
this is actually a fairly well reasoned logical process. I will give you that taking all of those items, a sphere would fit the description.
However, so would this:
from http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/ThreeTieredUniverse.htm
This is the step that I take exception with. the word *must* proves problematic, as people understood these passages differently than you, for hundreds of years. From what I can see (correct me if i'm wrong), the only reason that one *must* inperpret the passages the way you do is because you already know the Earth to be spherical.
As Sock puppet path has pointed out, the earth having a 'foundation' can easily be determined by a stone-working society, without having divine knowledge. Everything that they build must have a solid foundation, or it falls over. If, then, God has created the world, then certainly he had to create a foundation first; or else the world would fall over.
Last edited:
This kind of approach may work with your minions but I can actually spell.
.
No, I have shown where you have claimed things which in fact are not there save for your own personal interpretation
It's spelled contrary. You can say I missed the point all you like but when it comes down to brass tacks what it really is, is that I don't buy your artistic license when you are applying your personal interpretation to change a biblical passage in order to get it to say what you want it to say.
Because I effectively called bullshit when I saw it, no doubt.
No I was not threatened (if you are going to try and come across as intelligent at least have the spelling ability to follow up on it) I am Annoyed at seeing the proliferation of creationist nutters insistent upon trying to drag my country back into the dark ages and I felt river-wind (kudos for his patience) was giving you far more merit than you deserve. Logic problem you presented???? the only logic problem you've presented is that you expect people to leave logic at the door when they engage you
Ahhhh thank you I am not trying to prove the bible means what I think it means it is quite the opposite and if you have a shread of integrity you'll admit it. You are trying to convince people that the bible doesn't mean what it means when they read the words but what you interpret it to mean when you read it..ie circle means sphere etc.
Last edited:
Everything in the bible was 'actually meant to be read on a personal level'. That means that those who can't read, shouldn't be TOLD what it means. Secondly, The story of genesis is the account of the development of the human perception process from the moment of birth. If you want to know how the world was created, go visit a science museum.
*************
M*W: How do you know that the bible is supposed to be read on a personal level? Please cite your sources.
Also, what about all the illiterate people in the world who can't read, including the christians on this forum? What about them?
Please explain how the creation story is about the human perception process. That's a new one.
to add... about the perception process. If you replace the word 'lord' with 'senses', you would realize something interesting. I came up with this idea. Aren't I smart?
Nor would I expect to. But I will force you to avoid pejorative comments in lieu of actual discussion. Either participate in discussion or don't. If your intent is to create a point then deride those that disagree apparently for the sole reason they disagree, then it is you that doesn't belong in the thread. I wouldn't presume to "force" you to accept anyone's position or their opinion, nor would I presume to be able to do this. But I find it a terrible contradiction for the thread starter to tell those that he's not willing to engage in discussion with that they don't "belong" in the thread.
*I* don't have an evolution thread, but if you are referring to this thread, then it is, indeed, in danger of closing.
The logical fallacy of poisoning the well doesn't work with me, son. If I choose to close a thread, delete a post, issue an infraction, I'll do it regardless of your words and based solely on my own judgment of right and wrong. I could give two sh*ts whether you might agree with me or not.