A non-creationist interpretation of Genesis

When something is that clearly stated, such as "30 cubits" we see that the
statement is clearly approximate.

No theist i've found seems willing to talk about how far from 100% accurate the perfect book can be and still be True, 100 percent and inerrant.

 

Follow your own advice because I'm sorry, it's not up for debate. In Genesis, the Earth is created before the sun. The words are clear and right there.

The passage quoted above is when God makes the stars and the sun(the greater light), on the THIRD day.

The passage quoted below is where God has clearly created vegetation on Earth on the SECOND day...vegetation that we KNOW would not exist without the sun as an energy source. He is also talking about liquid water, something else that would not exist without the sun as a direct energy source or an indirect one, in that it's gravitational effect produces planets and moons which, like Europa, create heat through internal pressure that can also melt water. Otherwise, all that water is not liquid at all, it's ice.

But those two factors are insignificant when you consider that without the sun's gravitational force, there is no Earth at all. There are no planets either. There is nothing without the sun but possibly a cloud of dust and gas, something that itself would not exist without OTHER stars having first exploded and distributing their contents. Gold, for example, would not exist on this planet if it had not already been created inside a preexisting star. And, our sun is not a first generation star, which means other stars had to die BEFORE it could even be made. There is no possible way at all that the Earth formed before the rest of the stars and before the sun.

 

well, you could take that several ways depending on the context of the statement, however I can't really see a newspaper, in todays age, using "doth".

 

As I said before: at the time, saying that their God created the sun was the Israelites way of showing the middle finger to surrounding cultures thinking that the sun was a God, but feel free to keep adhering to a simpleton's interpretation that suits your agenda.

If religious people had not found it desirable to find out more about the universe because they saw the acquisition of knowledge on God’s creation as a form of worship, we’d probably still believe the earth is flat. But if this thread has not already informed you on the fact that religion and science are not in opposition per se, I suppose nothing will.

That uncertainty must be due to your lack of philosophical thinking. The assumption is that in the known world of time and space everything has a cause, so the first cause must be outside of time and space. If it gets you into a mellow mood: the assumption goes back to Aristotles "unmoved mover", he's the guy who pretty much founded logic as we know it (thanks to the fact that first Muslims and then Christians bothered to preserve his writings).

 

First of all, the only theory put forward by science regarding the big bang has to do with a sudden expansion of spacetime around 13.77 billion years ago from a single densely-packed point. The evidence for this includes background radiation and the movement of galaxies. There are ideas going around along with it, but to refer to those as things science "assumes" about the origin of the universe would be like saying that science "assumes" that influenza is caused by bad weather - no, certain cranks may assert this, but it goes against the scientific explanation, which is in fact well-justified and explained. But that's more or less entirely beside the point, as Genesis deals with the beginning of the universe for all of about one sentence.

 

It was an analogy. Okay, so you admit that it could be taken several ways... So how about this:

And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth. In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

Given the context of a passage including:
- Direct statements about Noah's genealogy
- Direct instructions as to building an ark

Is the flood metaphorical or literal?

 

If that's the case, it shouldn't ever be taken as an accurate description of the formation of the solar system and the universe. It's either a description of the beginning, in which case it's wrong, or a middle finger to surrounding cultures which means it's irrelevant, at least to any type of scientific discussion.

Science and religion can coexist if they remain separate. Once religion starts trying to tell science about science, religion loses, as it always has in the past, every single time. I believe the two belong separate and should not be mixed, ever, because religion is something for the heart while science is something for the brain. A scientist is never going to be able to convince you to love someone and live a good life and religion will never be able to convince you that anything it has to say about the world we live in is true on anything more than an abstract allegorical sense.

All I'm saying is, the implication of both believing in a creator and not believing in one is the same, and one does not get to be immune to the requirements put on the other. You can't believe in an eternal God and tell me the universe had to be created. If one can exist in an outside-the-universal-box type of way, so can the other. No double standards.

 

leaving that passage aside, if you're asking me if I interpret the flood to be literal or metaphorical, I interpret it to be literal. Some people disagree with me, but thats up to them.

 

The paper did well with the actual, "creation" of the universe. It didn't seem to deal with evolution, and the problem with sin and death was very fuzzy. It basically chunked "original sin" under the bus, and thus would have to completely redo theology. It was not very plain at all, and left me asking more questions, that were not satisfactorily answered.

 

If you had bothered to read the OP you’d find that - except for the “irrelevant”-bit, which IMHO is extremely relevant not only religiously but for discussions in the field history/history of religion/OT-scholarship - I and most other Christians would agree with that.

Stephen Jay Goulds “non-overlapping magisteria” would be a minimum consensus I could agree on to an extend. Certainly scientist’s should try hard not to let their religious (or non-religious) ideology influence their scientific findings. But I deem it important that science philosophy and religion remain in contact and inform each other, which is why I welcome projects such as the Metanexus Institute or the Templeton Foundation that guys like Dawkins so despise.

Sorry, you lost me. I don't really get what you're on about here.

 

The Genesis version, in my opinion, reminds me of Cyanobacteria and its remarkable history on earth. Replace "God" with this microbe and its begins to make sense.

 

So in the beginning "Cyanobacteria" created the heavens and the earth?

 

What a poor reading comprehension, you state vegetation on Earth the SECOND day and the Sun and stars on the THIRD day...lol..

Can't you see that your reading comprehension is not poor but LOST? You can't even understand what day was the vegetation and what day the sun was mentioned...

Re-do the test, I'll hope you pass next time.

 

Naaahhh you yourself know that there are several hipothesis that scientifc dudes made about the origin of the universe.

When you talk about "spacetime" , we can perceive space by measuring distance, but time itself is just a concept, nothing real like a physical entity, solely a measure, the same as well as weight, longitud, volume, etc, etc. Prove here the physical existence of time, give us the name of such discoverer, the date when it happened, how he/they detected time... and I can tell you that you will find nothing.. because time is a measure where you compare the motion or decay of bodies with a regular motion. For example, you compare your daily duties (even sleeping) with the regular rotation movement of the earth... or you compare the motion of light or communications, speed of cars, etc. with the regular vibration frequency of the atom of Caesium. So, what "spacetime" time are you talking about? Who invented such a fantasy?

And about the origin of the universe, if you like it or not, scientists only assume how it happened, they can't prove anything with certainty, for this reason they even contradict themselves with different arguments.

Definitively science can't go against the bible because science itself is so limited to prove anything about the origin of the universe.

 

And that's the problem. The reason they disagree with you is because they already know that the flood didn't happen, because according to the evidence present, it couldn't have happened.

Citation needed. Please demonstrate that there are various competing hypotheses regarding the post-singularity early universe. And way to assume (*)(*)(*)(*) about me, by the way.

Yeah, you know what? No. If I wanted an unreasonable debating partner, I'd comment one one of the many Prop 8 threads in the current events forum. If you can't figure out why it's unreasonable to question the idea that time exists, then I might as well be talking to a solipsist.

Okay, tell you what: you recite to me the current bulk of evidence drawn on to talk about the origin of the universe, and the current leading theories in science. You do that, and I'll take you seriously when you assert that scientists "only assume how it happened". Because right now, I have no reason to believe you understand what the leading theories are, let along what the evidence for them is.

But the part of the bible having to do with the origin of the universe specifically is about one or two lines. How 'bout the whole rest of Genesis, which is directly refuted by the evidence we have? How about Noah's flood, where virtually every scientific discipline that can examine the evidence for it (evolution, genomics, thermodynamics, physics, geology) explicitly refutes it, and historical sciences have a fair bit to say about where it could have come from if it were, in fact, a myth (which it is, because as stated - explicitly refuted by the evidence in numerous fields and supported by nothing). How about Exodus, where the current historical evidence shows that there were no slaves of anywhere near the number stated in the bible within egypt anywhere near that time, or that there is no evidence of an entire population wandering through the desert for 40 years (whereas we would in fact very well expect such evidence to pop up)? Look, no matter what you want to pull out of your ass about the origin of the universe, there's still the entire rest of the bible to talk about, and none of it stacks up well.

 

Okay... then tell me where the Bible "can be read" to say the earth is flat.

I can't correct your potential mistakes OR admit my own mistakes if I don't have any evidence.

 

Okaayy.... Now, will you answer my question?

Or do you believe that both Einstein and Mach - who said that geocentricity is just as plausible as heliocentricity - don't deserve the time of day?

This is not a theological question. It could be that I am 100% correct, and it STILL would not prove that God is the Creator.

What it IS is this: if you are afraid to pursue knowledge merely because you'll be different than the majority, you are brainwashed, dishonest, or cowardly. Call it a test of intellectual honesty.

 

Please read

http://www.allaboutcreation.org/origin-of-the-universe.htm

Origin of the Universe - The Big Bang Theory
So began the effort to propose an atheistic mechanism for the origin of the universe. Enter the Big Bang Theory and Darwinian Evolution. The original Big Bang Theory seeks to explain the sudden appearance of everything from nothing, while Darwinian Evolution seeks to explain the origin of complex life forms from their supposed simpler ancestors. The premise of the Big Bang is that the entire universe was compacted into a teeny tiny little ball, which, after randomly coming into existence for no apparent reason in the first place, exploded into all space, time, matter and energy in an instant. Yes, that's the theory. No Ph.D. required.

Origin of the Universe - The Inflation Universe Theories
The Big Bang Theory provided an atheistic explanation for the origin of the universe, but its obvious simplicity was subject to multiple attacks. As a result, the original theory is no longer the dominant scientific explanation for the atheistic origin of the universe. While the original Big Bang Theory is now "dead," from its ashes have emerged the various Inflationary Universe Theories (IUTs). Starting with Alan Guth in the late 1990's (The Inflationary Universe: The Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic Origins), the scientific community has now proposed roughly 50 different IUT variants. Scientists hope that one of the current IUTs will sire an accurate reconstruction of the birth of our universe, though it is universally acknowledged that all of the current IUTs have their problems. It seems the only way to get realistic calculations to match an IUT model is to make assumptions that are poorly justified.
- See more at: http://www.allaboutcreation.org/origin-of-the-universe.htm#sthash.9dCe6JwA.dpuf



And about the existence of time, your ideas are simply lunacies if you state that Time is a physical entity, or something other than a concept. If you demand a resonable debate, then start by demonstrating its existence.

So, besides of the required evidence of the existence of time, (don't come back with empty hands, because that will prove that you are writing nonsenses) please tell us what are you: a big "banger" or an inflationist? lol

 

Oh look, two things that have absolutely nothing to do with each other. What's more, neither was presented as part of an effort to propose an "atheistic" mechanism to existence, they were merely proposed as falsifiable explanations for observed phenomena. You know, the basis for basically all scientific research.

Actually, the theory states nothing about where the singularity came from, and "exploding" is completely wrong. But of course, this is what happens when you get your information from websites like "all about creation" - you're going to get the wrong information. It's not a scientific site, it's extremely sparse with citations (to the point of them basically not being there at all), and many of the claims there are absolute bull(*)(*)(*)(*) - for example, on their "Creation vs. Evolution" page:

Which, if you know even the slightest thing about evolution, is so wrong that it is either funny or sad.

Yes. That is what your source, a creationist (*)(*)(*)(*) site with absolutely no citations, has to say. Meanwhile, here's wikipedia:

Meanwhile, your source is completely uncited, and when I look into "Inflation Universe Theory", it turns out it's a part of the current big bang cosmology. Unlike the bible, scientific theories evolve and adapt to new information.

Buddy, I recommend that when talking about science, you actually look to scientific sources. Not some creationist website.

Also, I retract my statement about time. I had fundamentally misunderstood what you were talking about - I was under the impression you were opposed to time as a concept. My mistake. I obviously can't prove that time is an actual physical entity.

EDIT: OH MY GOD. I just clicked one of the through links, and realized why I recognized the style. It linked me through to All About Science. So that's why it seemed so familiar! That site is so ridiculously out of touch with reality that it hurts. Nice job, you've just provided a citation which is not only bull(*)(*)(*)(*) on its face, but belongs to a site which has about the reliability and honesty of The Onion. Care to offer something a little less bat(*)(*)(*)(*)?

 

What evidence is present that allows you to know that it couldn't have happened?

 

I think we've been over this...

- First law of thermodynamics - where'd the water go, where did it come from?
- Physics - given the boat-building techniques known at the time and the available raw materials, the boat would have collapsed in on itself. Given the size listed in the bible, there would not have even been close to enough room to fit two of every "kind" of animal.
- Zoology - there are 250,000 species of beetle alone. That's already a massive amount of biomass to fit on the ark, unless you want to treat them all as one kind, which would require far more time than is given. What's more, there's the issue of parasites, of feeding the animals (do you have any idea how much a pair of elephants eats in a month?), et cetera.
- Geology - there are clear markers for floods in the geologic column. If there had been a massive, global flood, these signs would be present. They aren't.
- Genetics - when a population is reduced to a small size, even a few hundred, the genetic variance present drops dramatically. Such a drop is prominently visible in species which had near-extinction events (such as the cheetah) even tens of thousands of years ago - if there was such an event, we would see these markers in every species on the planet. And we don't.
- Geography - So the three-toed sloth somehow crossed the ocean, then two continents, to get to the ark.
- History - there's evidence of a localized flood in the area near where the Bible is estimated to have originated from, providing an explanation of the source of it should it be a myth.

...Basically, name a discipline which could examine evidence for the flood, and it's not only done so, not only demonstrated that there is no evidence, but shown places we should have seen evidence if it actually happened, and don't. So yeah. Noah's flood is right up there in the realm with Homeopathy and perpetual motion engines as far as ideas that are scientifically proven to be false.

 

The irony here is that you are the one failing to read your own bible correctly. My chronology is correct. If all you can do is fling insults in return, I'll take that as a pretty solid confirmation that you have no actual rebuttal.

 

The Bible was a heavily edited political document created by King Josiah of Judah and his scribes in the seventh century BCE. It was cobbled together from legends and myths from a variety of sources and expanded with a bit of creative writing to do one thing: to justify the occupation of the territories north of Judah and to make a single nation under the authority of a single King annointed by a single god, initially Hezekiah and later King Josiah. Later when Josiah got killed in a political double cross with Pharoah Neco the scribes had to rewrite the narrative to explain how a king with the approval of the great god of creation could be defeated. And later when they were conquered by the Babylonians the scribes had to rewrite the bible again. Anyone who thinks the Bible is a historical document of real events doesn't understand the concept of spin doctoring.
http://prophetess.lstc.edu/~rklein/Documents/grounds.htm
[video=youtube;3tdKptBL5dc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tdKptBL5dc[/video]
See the previous 3 videos for context.

 

Anyone who thinks that the readers cannot see the 'spin doctoring' that you are writing doesn't understand the concept of "spin doctoring".

 

Obviously there are plenty of readers who CANNOT see the the "spin doctoring". So what's your point? I see 5 pages of argument about the scientific validity of bronze age fairy tales. What's next? The energy requirements of Rumplestilskins flax to gold matter converter?