Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Literal Genesis 1:3

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
    You realize there are many OT scholars that disagree that "Tov" always represents a 24-hour period.

    An you still haven't explained "evening" and "morning" as global markers of time. You know, a rotating Earth and all that modern complicated astrophysics.

    Oh, and why is "evening" first. "Evening and Morning the first Day". Did the first Day start with evening? Oh, that's right -- ANE cosmology.

    K54
    Tov? Or yom.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
      After Elohim created light, where was the darkness?

      And you Elohim was the source of the EM radiation -- was this just ROYGBIV or the entire spectrum from ULF to X-rays?

      If you want the story to match with modern physics, you're going have to do better than use supernatural explanations whenever you want.

      So, I will assume you're not a Biblical Scientific Creationist?
      First, I do not have to match modern physics does modern physics really understand what did or did not happen at the point of creation? And no, again, I am not limited to physical explanations, especially since I believe this was a supernatural event. And it is possible that the light was limited to specific points in the universe while other parts of the universe were in darkness. Both light and darkness exist presently in the universe. I just don't see what your problem is.



      Prove what with other Hebrew writings? That they didn't have a modern understanding of the Cosmos?
      No you said that they had a "mystical notion" - what do you mean by this and why, based on what?

      Why don't you "prove" to me that the ANE Hebrews interpreted the story in the same manner you're trying to force in modern science + miracles (whenever it's convenient)?
      What? The Hebrews didn't think this was a supernatural event?


      Great. So you can bring in a supernatural explanation of a natural phenomenon any time you want?
      BUT THIS IS A SUPERNATURAL EVEN ACCORDING TO THE TEXT!


      P.S. If believing your nonsense is a necessary part of being a Christian, then count me out.
      So let it written, so let it be done...
      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
        You realize there are many OT scholars that disagree that "Tov" always represents a 24-hour period.

        An you still haven't explained "evening" and "morning" as global markers of time. You know, a rotating Earth and all that modern complicated astrophysics.

        Oh, and why is "evening" first. "Evening and Morning the first Day". Did the first Day start with evening? Oh, that's right -- ANE cosmology.

        K54
        Again BS - if this texts is speaking of a time period there is no necessity to conclude a flat earth. And it could mean 24 hours, or a longer period, in either case it is speaking of time so your whole flat earth theory is nonsense.
        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

        Comment


        • #94
          It might make more sense to discuss the scientific aspects of Genesis than those of the painting Mona Lisa, I suppose. How helpful would it be to know that the painting was done with oil put on Lombardy poplar? How were the oil paints made? When? How was it damaged and repaired (not once, but twice)? How much damage did the 1809 cleaning and revarnishing cause? What damage, exactly?
          The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

          [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
            It might make more sense to discuss the scientific aspects of Genesis than those of the painting Mona Lisa, I suppose. How helpful would it be to know that the painting was done with oil put on Lombardy poplar? How were the oil paints made? When? How was it damaged and repaired (not once, but twice)? How much damage did the 1809 cleaning and revarnishing cause? What damage, exactly?
            Yet again you miss the point. YECs claim the first Genesis story can be read "plainly" (etc...)

            I'm trying to get at what that "plain" reading is, but so far have gotten conjectures and interpretations.

            Physical "light" to us is a collection of photon of various energies. The ANE Hebrew did not understand that.

            One participant conjectured Elohim was the source of this light. Does that make physical sense? Is that the obvious reading of Ge 1:3?

            Then "separation" of Light from Darkness. What does this mean? I got more interpretation...

            Note that "separation" is used later in the chapter for separating the waters above and below, and waters below into sea and dry land. Seems like literal separation to me. So what does separation of Light and Darkness mean, literally.

            I'm glad I started this thread to show what a FARCE YE "Scientific" Creationism is.

            But there's still hope. JF hasn't weighed in yet.

            Of course he thinks that the paucity of Hamas missiles which have hit live Israeli targets being due to God's protection (I'm not doubting that!) is an example of Biblical "Science".

            Oy vey's mir...

            K54

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by seer View Post
              First, I do not have to match modern physics does modern physics really understand what did or did not happen at the point of creation? And no, again, I am not limited to physical explanations, especially since I believe this was a supernatural event. And it is possible that the light was limited to specific points in the universe while other parts of the universe were in darkness. Both light and darkness exist presently in the universe. I just don't see what your problem is.





              No you said that they had a "mystical notion" - what do you mean by this and why, based on what?



              What? The Hebrews didn't think this was a supernatural event?




              BUT THIS IS A SUPERNATURAL EVEN ACCORDING TO THE TEXT!




              So let it written, so let it be done...
              Ok, I'm done with you.

              You don't have a plain physical YEC "reading" of the first Genesis story.

              You interpret all over the place, then throw in miracles when you can't come up with something better.

              If creation is ALL supernatural -- including the vastness of the Cosmos and Deep Time and Deep History evident in creation itself --- then why on "Earth" would anyone in hisher right mind consider this explanation "scientific"?

              Just chalk up all those sciencey facts to miracles and be done with it.

              Admit that Biblical "Scientific" Creationism is a fraud. Of course, that's been known for over 200 years since Flood Geology fell apart.

              So far the YECs (excuse me, one "Open Creationist") in this thread have come with 1) circularity, "plain is plain" and 2) various attempts at that naughty word "interpretation".

              Also, I note that KBertsche is the only OEC that chimed in. And he made great observations.

              Any other OE/TE want to join in the fun?

              K54

              Comment


              • #97
                As an example of the YEC hypocrisy of "plain reading, not interpretation", here's an assignment I've given my students as part of section on logical fallacies, rhetoric, and equivocation. It compares statements of faith from The American Scientific Affiliation and Answers in Genesis.

                Originally posted by An assignment from Klaus54

                Read the following two statements from Christian organizations.

                I. Here’s section D6 of the Statement of Faith of the creationist organization Answers in Genesis:

                D6. By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

                (http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith)

                II. In contrast, look at the statements of faith of the American Scientific Affiliation, also a Christian organization:

                1. We accept the divine inspiration, trustworthiness and authority of the Bible in matters of faith and conduct.
                2. We confess the Triune God affirmed in the Nicene and Apostles' creeds which we accept as brief, faithful statements of Christian doctrine based upon Scripture.
                3. We believe that in creating and preserving the universe God has endowed it with contingent order and intelligibility, the basis of scientific investigation.
                4. We recognize our responsibility, as stewards of God's creation, to use science and technology for the good of humanity and the whole world.

                (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/faithASA.html)

                Your assignment: Write an essay of where you will analyze and compare and contrast the statements of these two Christian organizations. In your analysis, explain how each of these either fits or does not fit with the definitions of “science” we have talked about in this course.
                K54

                P.S. Note the use of the word "interpretation" in the AiG statement.

                They imply (correctly) that scientific facts have to be interpreted.

                BUT, they conveniently avoid the fact that Scripture needs interpretation!!!

                Hypocrisy and fideism clear as a bell.
                Last edited by klaus54; 07-24-2014, 07:14 PM. Reason: p.s.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                  The red highlighted text implies that "light" is not physical? Is this correct?
                  No, that isn't correct.

                  [QUOTE=klaus54;79466] BTW, the bolded sentence is gibberish. Translation, please?


                  The text doesn't care whether you or the YEC's are correct. Beat the crap out of each other and it makes no difference to the text who wins. You're both wasting your energy in defending or attacking the text. Because it will subsume whatever result culminates from the both of your efforts and make it it's own. All truth is God's truth and the end claim will be,"yep God did that". This is a no-win for you. YEC's are just defending the teaching of the church, this is Nicopernicus all over again. Although embaressed that their teachings were found incorrect the truth was subsumed by the text and never missed a beat, "yep thats how God did it". Poor deluded fool, just keep patting yourself on the back and continue beating the air.

                  And since this thread and the question it asks is really only a moot point I'll waste no more time on it. Try to find something more worthwhile to do with your time, like watching paint dry.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    [QUOTE=Mr. Anderson;80522]No, that isn't correct.

                    Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                    BTW, the bolded sentence is gibberish. Translation, please?


                    The text doesn't care whether you or the YEC's are correct. Beat the crap out of each other and it makes no difference to the text who wins. You're both wasting your energy in defending or attacking the text. Because it will subsume whatever result culminates from the both of your efforts and make it it's own. All truth is God's truth and the end claim will be,"yep God did that". This is a no-win for you. YEC's are just defending the teaching of the church, this is Nicopernicus all over again. Although embaressed that their teachings were found incorrect the truth was subsumed by the text and never missed a beat, "yep thats how God did it". Poor deluded fool, just keep patting yourself on the back and continue beating the air.

                    And since this thread and the question it asks is really only a moot point I'll waste no more time on it. Try to find something more worthwhile to do with your time, like watching paint dry.
                    Embarrassed???

                    Asking YEC literalists their literal reading of Genesis 1:3ff is a moot point posed by a deluded fool?

                    No, just trying to get inside the head of YEC Genesis literalists.

                    What I found was a room full of cobwebs and circus mirrors.

                    Oh, and wannabe YEC apologists doing "360s".

                    Shameful and droll at the same time...

                    K54

                    Comment


                    • I support a very literal reading of Genesis in the original language, and parts of it can even be seen as a kind of protoscientific thought (eg, beginning to distinguish between different kinds of things, ie, fruits vs vegtables), but by focusing on a literal reading of the text in the original language, it is abundantly clear that it is nothing at all like modern science and was certainly never intended as such. How could it be? There was no such thing as modern scientific thought at the time. Those who think it is neither understand science nor ancient literature. Nor the word of God.
                      βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                      ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                      אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                        I support a very literal reading of Genesis in the original language, and parts of it can even be seen as a kind of protoscientific thought (eg, beginning to distinguish between different kinds of things, ie, fruits vs vegtables), but by focusing on a literal reading of the text in the original language, it is abundantly clear that it is nothing at all like modern science and was certainly never intended as such. How could it be? There was no such thing as modern scientific thought at the time. Those who think it is neither understand science nor ancient literature. Nor the word of God.
                        Thanks!

                        That's pretty much what I was trying to get the participating YECs to admit.

                        I do agree that one can read some concordism of modern science and ANE cosmology into the text.

                        And I just wish I could make YECs understand that they're interpreting as well.

                        K54

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                          Those who think it is neither understand science nor ancient literature. Nor the word of God.
                          I had some trouble deciding what you meant because of lack of parallelism. Possibly you meant, "Those who think it is so understands neither science nor (ancient literature/the word of God)."
                          The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                          [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                            I had some trouble deciding what you meant because of lack of parallelism. Possibly you meant, "Those who think it is so understands neither science nor (ancient literature/the word of God)."
                            ... Those who think [a very literal reading of Genesis in the original language] is [like modern science or intended to be anything like it] do not understand science or ancient literature. The final element was intentionally a little ambiguous, which is why I broke the strict parallelism leading up to it. The word of God as it is reflected in the Bible, which is ancient literature, is best understood as ancient literature speaking to us over many centuries--that's an astounding experience. The word of God as it is reflected in nature and creation can also be understood as God speaking to us.
                            βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                            ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                            אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                              Tov? Or yom.
                              Oops! "Yom".

                              I was thinking good and very good. (Tov and Tov Tov).

                              K54

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                              48 responses
                              135 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Sparko
                              by Sparko
                               
                              Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                              16 responses
                              74 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                              6 responses
                              46 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Working...
                              X