The Genesis Account and Science

[Saquist]

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.

All I seek is meaningfull discourse. You've know idea how exaperated it's been to find a meaningful conversation inspite of so many intellectuals.
I seek individuals of like-mind and I like to put myself to the test, yet this has become all together enlightening for me. I'm always endeavoring to maintain my objectivity. It can be hard to do sometimes or rather hard to tell when I'm not being objective and neutral...

very true. It is important to divide the intend of the author from the interpretation by the reader.

This was my thought exactly. I finished several books of the New Jedi Order surfice to say I would not consider the "circle" to be an inaccurate description of the Sernpidal or Correlia. I read a great deal and descriptions just aren't bound by ridged definitions...sometimes it's just the idea that needs to get across to 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.

You are most gracious. I did not expect an agreement there.

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.

Yes you're right this reveals an unobjective tone of speech. I did have a hard time considering...well not considering, more like developing how else this could be interpretted. The illistration is revealing to that.

And you're right hindsight is 20/20. It's a knowledge we have over them and its' influencing. Yet I'm a strict naysayer in repeated coincidence and luck.

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.[/QUOTE]

That's accurate and more than possible. And honestly I don't wish to appear to reduce the knowledge of the ancients to neanderthals. I have to assume they were just as inteligent if not as scientificly capable. I don't see it as impossible for them to see a foundation for the Earth.

Yet I must reiterate. A foundation is something anchor to something unmovable I'm having a difficult time melding 'foundation' to hanging upon nothing. Ultimately that is the difference between the Bible and others as we progressed in time. I'm not fully versed on ancient culture but I remember much of what I read and I know they believe in a foundation for the Earth one that existed in terms of a Great Elephant, Atlas, or some highly metaphorical beast of burdeon that they took quiet litteraly despite the obsurdity.

We spoke of intentions of the writers...I've read much of the Bible repeatedly. The bible makes use of numerous styles of metaphors and yet It never gets lost in them so as to assign personification, human qualities to animals or inanimate objects without clear reasoning.

Even the snake that spoke to Eve was under influence of a spirit person. Yet Revelations describes Satan as a Dragon. I'ts known to be Satan and methaphorical as it immediately identifies "dragon" with Satan.

My meaning is this: If I were to scale how close Job's and Isaiah's statements actually come to the truth I'd give it an 8/10 or even a 9/10. Just for the statement it'self.

But if I were rating the description. For persons that had never observed the Earth from space or have never seen the depths of the mountains then I'd have to call their discription of what they would see for the first time as right-on-target.

And that's what I see...a first time description as if I'd shown it to them myself with a post card from the moon. I can put myself in both sets of shoes. The one that knows and the one that does not know. I know as an artist this description is not wrong. It's how I paint, it's how I draw, it's how I write.

It's hard to single out the intent of a writer. He's not around to say so. There was a significant limit to knowledge in that time...the question is did Isaiah and Job share it.

One reason I don't believe so for Isaiahs case is that as Hebrew the ties to the rest of the world were severed or extremely short. Gentiles were not a common association for Isrealites. Job I dont believe lived in the immediate area of Jerusalem, he was a oriental and yet these men never spoke of what they wrote as theory but as fact, they didn't overexaggerate their metaphors, they were more like similies, they also had a close connection with God.

This kind of approach may work with your minions but I can actually spell.

Okay...

No, I have shown where you have claimed things which in fact are not there save for your own personal interpretation

Haven't actually shown that you can only restate the obvious?

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.

oh...no...not a direct attack against my spelling. this-means-war.

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

You approached in an attack posture and now you're continuing. You've obviously have been threaten by "my interpretation" Why?
If you wanted to be a heckler then do so. be just as you are. But you're affraid and It' tangible...your angst, your discuss, your posture is flamboyant and dramatic.

You want to be taken seriously and yet you present no benifical knowledge no theroy and your purpose in the discussion is nonexistent. You're not contributing you're heckling. Is this science in action. You spoke of Dark Ages...intresting you behavior, heckling, attacking, hostile, provocative, ignoring and a strict sense of tradition portray you as dark and dated.

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.

Why does it matter to you? Once again what's your purpose here? Right now you're only a disrupting influence. If you have no greater knowledge to display or impart to inflence me to turn away from my "evil ways" of darkness and hearsay then why are you here? Tell me. Purpose yourself and order your thoughts into something coherent and intelligent that reveals you've considered and spent time on deeper reflections.

Give me a reason to engage you in intelligent discourse. The Moderator demands it. I put that burdeon on you. You engaged me with hostility and I'm chanllenging you to think and put away your club, sip some tea and express yourself propperly. Come propperly dressed with the proper attitude or follow Ohiliolite and place me on your ignore list.

Because you most certainly didn't come here to have a discussion but that can change...

Nor would I expect to. But I will force you to avoid pejorative comments in lieu of actual discussion.

Strange...that sounds like what was happening before he arrived. Let's review....

Look up in the day or night sky do you see any big string or chain? next

I must note that he is actually agreeing with the scriputre as he is saying that they're is nothing there to hang the earth upon and the scripture is saying the same exact thing. Thoughtless.

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 have and I will but I will also chastize to the propper degree aswell as the person that started the thread in order to keep it on track an thoughtfull. I got rid of Ophiliolite as his contributions were merely argumentative.

Snake's methods are merely argumentative aswell. They were thoughtless and he was clearly threatened by my perception...Poppy cock, indeed...There was no arguement before and yet now there is.

IF he had approached civilly instead with his air of incredulousness and disgust I'd be instantly in a position to listen. I would have been challenged...and he would have made some sort of point...but that didn't happen did it?

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.

I beg your pardon, then.

The logical fallacy of poisoning the well doesn't work with me, son. .

[Apparently the right words do.]
And I do not recongize fallacy premises. Reasons not to think and consider are already abundant in language and slang already, assigning scientific designations to every day speech amount to trivial meta-message tactics. (That is to not speak plainly)

[The tener here is intresting. The use of the word "son" conotates relation and affinity in most cases, in this case your intention is to "lord" as it were, over, and subjugate, is it not? Or it conveys an impression of speech that you are older and therefore wiser than myself and therefore should be listened too as though a father like figure.]

[would that be perjorative "son" or a chastizing "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

[Very provocative]
Then wield your power...if you sense a challenge or believe me dishonest as to brace yourself in such a provocative fashion. Who am I to demand you follow my agreement?

Weild it...it is an encouragement. As an observer of emotion and human behavior I am MOST intrested in your reactions. Especially in those that percieve the have superior power over their contemporaries. I have always been intrested in reactions and actions alike. It allows me predict future behavior and to influence that behavior if I so wish, too. -Every action has an equal an opposite reaction, correct? Not quite so with behavior...but there are similarities.

But this is a different topic and awhole other story. If you wish to continue you may PM me at your discretion. As for snakelord give me another option to open chastisment and I will make use of it, for I don't think you'd approve of my methods of the motivating I've used in the past.

Heres to options...

[I applogize, his name is sock puppet not snake lord.]

 

[spidergoat]

I'm always endeavoring to maintain my objectivity.

Then consider this:
Are there talking snakes? No.
Have their ever been talking snakes? No.
Does the bible describe a talking snake? Yes.
Is the bible the truth? The inescapable conclusion is no.

 

[Saquist]

I have. But you have not. Nor do you wish to give the bible real consideration. You'd have to over come your fear to do so and you're not ready for that so you build your wall...Your wall is high and sound proof so nary a muffle of anything intelligent can be heard.

engage and withdraw...but never commit.
The inescapble conclusion is "no" you can't hear. Nor have you heard. No you don't have ears because he that has ears listen. You speak but do not listen.

 

[spidergoat]

On the contrary, I would like to hear some proof of talking snakes. It seems to me, if someone was presenting evidence in a court, and related a story where a snake talked to him (in a literal sense), their credibility would be questionable. Why does Genesis get a free pass?

I prefer to read the bible and understand it in the context in which it was written, by members of a civilization advanced enough to look around them and consider the origins of things, and to make hypothesis. I wonder about those in this civilization who lack the same courage and who instead rely on best guesses handed down from the distant past, and codified into an fixed dogma...

The Bible is a glorified version of Aesop's fables, and should be understood as such.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

On the contrary, I would like to hear some proof of talking snakes. It seems to me, if someone was presenting evidence in a court, and related a story where a snake talked to him (in a literal sense), their credibility would be questionable. Why does Genesis get a free pass?

I prefer to read the bible and understand it in the context in which it was written, by members of a civilization advanced enough to look around them and consider the origins of things, and to make hypothesis. I wonder about those in this civilization who lack the same courage and who instead rely on best guesses handed down from the distant past, and codified into an fixed dogma...

The Bible is a glorified version of Aesop's fables, and should be understood as such.

*************
M*W: Unfortunately, in a court of law as well as in the bible, talking snakes could not be implicated nor proven to have taken place as their private conversations would be objected to on the premise of their testimony being nothing more than "hearsay" and would be stricken from the record, just as their testimony should be stricken from the bible.

 

[spidergoat]

Yes, strictly speaking, but even strange outlandish stories can teach something. I would consider bible stories like I would consider any story. There may be truth in them, but not necessarily the orthodox truth. If our own knowledge and intelligence were not required in interpreting them, it would not be written, "let them who have eyes, see". That means that not everyone can read between the lines and discern the real truth of it.

 

[Sock puppet path]

OK saquist following your suggestion I got ppropperly dressed and ppropperly all that other stuff too so we may carry on with this heady intellectual discourse.

http://eclecticboogaloo.typepad.com/eclectic_boogaloo/clown.jpg

Most fitting wouldn't you say, I'm on board now.

Now where were we....oh yes

a circle is a sphere
circle not hanging means planet
foundation means ground which means something else too.

This oughta set the scientific community on it's ear..

I'll review and add more to the list

PS also sipping tea, Earl Grey of course.
PSS I'm a little confused about the talking snake thingy

 

[nexusfruit]

Isn't the EGO a wonderful thing? It's sad....but I ain't cryin'.

 

[Saquist]

On the contrary, I would like to hear some proof of talking snakes. It seems to me, if someone was presenting evidence in a court, and related a story where a snake talked to him (in a literal sense), their credibility would be questionable. Why does Genesis get a free pass?

I prefer to read the bible and understand it in the context in which it was written, by members of a civilization advanced enough to look around them and consider the origins of things, and to make hypothesis. I wonder about those in this civilization who lack the same courage and who instead rely on best guesses handed down from the distant past, and codified into an fixed dogma...

The Bible is a glorified version of Aesop's fables, and should be understood as such.

Genesis doesn't get a free pass.
Litteral or not perception is everything which is why we're discussing the Creative days on this Thread and not your issues with talking snakes.

but I'll address it. Whether or not the snake actually talked to Eve, I don't know. You want proof that snakes can talk...In a court of law I'd show you a person who can make it appear that a snake can talk aka a ventriloquist. I suggest you don't get hung up on the snake issue. We are discussing entities with great ability if not power. In a court of law...we'd have to entertain this possibility however remote or incredulous you find it. It's called equal consideration and a fair trial.

That's why I said you were afraid. The conclusion that aree being discuss on this thread will have an impact on our reality and how we see the world and our enviroment but there is nothing imaginary about what the bible tells us. It's very purpose defies the "bed time" story implication that you and your compadres place on it. It's not a normal book and part of proving that is addressing and comparing the commonaility it shares with reality science and history.

If you're ready to dismiss these things as coincidence then you're not ready to address and relate the abilities of an all powerful God, creation and the angels it speaks of.

 

[Saquist]

To Continue Day Three:

The bible account adds: "Let the Earth cause grass to shoot forth, vegetation bearing seed, fruit trees yielding fruit according to their kinds, the seed of which is in it, upon the earth. And it came to be so." Genesis 1:11

Thus by the close of this third creative period, three broad categories of land plants had been created. The diffused light would ahve become quite strong by then, ample for the process of photosynthesis so vital to green plants. Incidentally, the account here does not mention every "Kind" of plant that came on the scene. Microscopic organisms, water plants and others are not specifically named but likely were created on this "day".

 

[Ophiolite]

Let the Earth cause grass to shoot forth, vegetation bearing seed, fruit trees yielding fruit according to their kinds, the seed of which is in it, upon the earth. And it came to be so." Genesis 1:11

Interesting. So grass, which is an angiosperm, is suggested by Genesis to be the first terrestrial plant, rather than a relatively recent addition. Once again Genesis got the details wrong.

 

[Nickelodeon]

So when did grass first appear?

 

[Saquist]

Interesting. So grass, which is an angiosperm, is suggested by Genesis to be the first terrestrial plant, rather than a relatively recent addition. Once again Genesis got the details wrong.

Intresting... I din't see the word first...where did you see it.

 

[Ophiolite]

So when did grass first appear?

Here is what wikipedia has to say on the matter.
Until recently grasses were thought to have evolved around 55 million years ago, based on fossil records. However, recent findings of 65-million-year-old phytoliths resembling grass phytoliths (including ancestors of rice and bamboo) in Cretaceous dinosaur coprolites may place the diversification of grasses to an earlier date.

You may feel, however, that the latter evidence is just a pile of shit.

 

[SkinWalker]

The only thing useful that can be derived from studying the Genesis chapter of biblical mythology is the general mindset and attitude of the author(s). Obviously this isn't an actual account of a real creation (only the most deluded of humanity accepts this), but a written account by Bronze or perhaps even Iron Age author. Portions of Genesis stick out and strike me as evidence of a possible written account of a story previously kept as an oral tradition (the very existence of two distinct and separate creation myths for instance).

As an oral tradition, probably based on the oral traditions of several if not many Mesopotamian cultures, not the least of which would be the Sumerian, the the story is beautiful poetry. Indeed the first chapter of the myth flows like a hymn or poem, that, when read in Hebrew, has a very appealing and artistic quality to it. This is clearly one of humanity's greatest works of art and even in its English translations, the artistic value shines through. I always enjoy reading Genesis (as well as Psalms and other books).

But, with regard to the attitude of the authors of the creation stories in Genesis, we can find several hints of their familiarity with other Mesopotamian myths, such as the Enuma Elish, as well as their overall worldview. The writers of Creation obviously didn't understand photosynthesis, since they have plants and fruit trees before they have the sun:

Day Four:
And God said, "let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth." And it was so. god made the two great lights -the greater light to rule the day (the Sun) and the lesser light to rule the night (the Moon) - and the stars. And god set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And god saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.

(New Revised Standard Edition -any typos are mine)

Like Ophiolite mentioned, its also obvious that the authors, artistic and creative they are, had no understanding that angiosperms are relatively recent additions to the plant kingdom. But other hints are given by the authors in both chapters 1 and 2 that indicate their being part of an agrarian culture. Cattle are mentioned (over an over) and, starting at 2:4, we see mention of a time before agriculture:

In the day that Yahweh made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up -for Yahweh had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground; but a stream would rise up from the earth and water the whole face of the ground -then Yahweh formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

What I find interesting is the use of the feminine form of the Hebrew word for "ground" (as written in the earliest versions). And this is where we probably get the word Adam (the myth's first human). The Hebrew authors could have very easily used the masculine form, adom, but instead they used the feminine, adomah (and for you BSG fans, there's a cognate to "Adama"). Perhaps I'm wrong and maybe The Devil Inside (who is fluent in Hebrew) will correct me.

To me, the biblical passage above seems to be an agrarian, and now literate, society "remembering" their pre-agricultural ancestors. They understood that their crops of wheat, barley, chickpeas, etc. were not something that occurred in nature the way it does in their fields. They knew that a society that didn't have agriculture lived an entirely different lifeway with different and completely alien (perhaps disagreeable) cultural practices. Surely they knew of the Bedouins and other nomadic and even hunter-gatherer societies in the Fertile Crescent and beyond (perhaps the Indus-Valley and the Saudi Peninsula's interior and along the coast.

This is clearly a case of myth being used to explain where agricultural lifeways come from (they're god-given) and why its important to appease the gods (the first Jews were obviously polytheistic before their reforms -elohim is a plural term, doubtless a remnant of other Mesopotamian pantheons) in order to maintain balance and equilibrium within their agricultural practices. Stories and myths like this perhaps motivated the individual to pull his weight for the good of the society. Most Mesopotamian cultures of the day had laws that mandated the dams and shardufs in ones fields be properly maintained or face penalties, so "pulling one's weight" was clearly a necessary objective for the agrarian society.

Genesis is a wonderful and beautiful work of art that truly gives us insight into the minds and attitudes of the Bronze Age individual, but we have to keep in mind that however plausible any inferences (such as the ones I've drawn) may seem, they're only hypotheses. We can only validate their merit based on the evidence that presents itself independently (pollen and phytolith analyses, pottery and lithic artifacts, other written accounts from contemporary cultures (Akkadians, Sumerians, Babylonians, Egyptians, etc.), and so on. But even if the evidence supports an inference, the author probably still had other motivations and attitudes completely unknown to us.

Genesis and science converge only at the anthropological, psychological and other sociological points. Very little useful information can be obtained from Genesis (or any biblical myth for that matter) to inform us on matters of biology, geology, physics, or chemistry. For those sciences, we might as well toss Genesis in the rubbish bin.

 

[river-wind]

Interesting. So grass, which is an angiosperm, is suggested by Genesis to be the first terrestrial plant, rather than a relatively recent addition. Once again Genesis got the details wrong.

Mosses, algea, etc (every photosynthesising organism that isn't seed-bearing), aren't mentioned at all, so I guess we can assume that they existed before God created everything. Like the sun and moon.

 

[Saquist]

That was very well thought out post Skinwalker but however your source or yourself make assumption of relation that that work on an alternating current. That is, It could easily switch the other way and the bible and Hebrews are the true source and it's entirely likely that is actually the case. But surfice it to say much of what you posted was historical theory. I understand your position but lets continue with the Fourth day..

The Fourth Day

"Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night; and they must serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years. And they must serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the Earth.' And it came to be so. And God proceeded to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luninary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars."
-Genesis 1:14-16; Psalm 136:7-9

Now take note: Previoulsly, on the first "day," the expression "Let light come to be" was used. The Hebrew word there used for "light" is 'ohr, meaning light in a general sense.

On the fourth "day", the Hebrew word changes to ma-'ohr', which means the source of light. Rotherham, in a footnote on "Luminaries" in the Emphasized Bible, says:

"In ver.3, 'or (with and accent mark over the "o") ['ohr], light diffused." Then he goes on to show that the Hebrew word ma-'ohr' in verse 14 means soemthing "affording light." On the firest "day" diffused light evidently penetrated the swaddling bands, but the sources of that light could not have been seen by an earthly observer because of the cloud layers still enveloping the earth. Now, on this fourth "day," things apparently changed.

The perspective of the earth bound observer never changes. And the speaker in Genesis apparently is listening to God's words and watching the effect of his will.

As a result this Fourth Day reveals that the Sun was always there but at this time it was allowed to bring direct light to the ground. As stated at the outset Genesis remains true to scientific form and Wallace Pratt's statement becomes evidently true. Genesis does shows the develpment of the Earth and Heavens to a simple pastoral people.

But we'll not stop here, there are two more days...

 

[SnakeLord]

There was nothing, so god said "let there be light", and there was still nothing, but at least he could see it

Genesis remains true to scientific form

No it doesn't, and everyone keeps telling you that. Why is it you don't listen?

 

[nova900]

That is, It could easily switch the other way and the bible and Hebrews are the true source and it's entirely likely that is actually the case.

A person could switch it if they liked but that still does not change the fact that these other creation-myth stories came BEFORE the ones' in the Old Testament.

 

[Saquist]

What relevence does before have? And how does it establish a contradiction? What is the impact of this fact?