I love how Theology Online is a like one big self-abortion. It doesn't get any better than this, when you have Klaus54 dictating hospitality.
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
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
-
-
Originally posted by klaus54 View PostLet's return to a serious discussion of Ge 1:3, please.
Moderators?
K54
ETA: You can report posts too. It's the little triangle shaped button with the "!" in it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View PostOS has been reported. As this is no longer one of my areas, I don't have the power to do any more than that.
ETA: You can report posts too. It's the little triangle shaped button with the "!" in it.
I also figured out how to "ignore" him.
K54
Comment
-
YECs often use this phrase "just-so story," especially in attacking the theory of evolution. I have little objection if the story really does appear to trash Genesis. But perhaps one could find a story that explains Genesis in terms of present scientific knowledge though it might also use speculation. Would the YECs still call it a just-so story, though?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 PostYECs often use this phrase "just-so story," especially in attacking the theory of evolution. I have no objection if the story really does appear to trash Genesis. But perhaps one could find a story that explains Genesis in terms of present scientific knowledge though it might also use speculation. Would the YECs still call it a just-so story, though?
So, using the YEC "just-so-story" jargon, what is THEIR "literal" reading of Genesis 1 (Ge 1:3 suffices for now) that makes cosmic and biological evolution a "just-so-story"?
I mean we need to compare oranges and oranges. Literal physical evidence of deep time and history and evolution vis-a-vis a (the??) literal reading of Genesis that maps to physical reality.
I think what TS is talking about is some form a "Concordism".
Hugh Ross tried this with his OEC views and got trashed by YEC leaders as a "compromiser" for his efforts.
K54
Comment
-
Originally posted by klaus54 View PostYour first two sentences appear to me to be conflicting, or you have the logic backwards. Cosmic and Biological evolution are scientific theories. They are what they are -- with no variation on the basics -- no problem with literalness. OTOH, since Genesis 1 apparently needs interpretation, there are some interpretations that "trash" science.
So, using the YEC "just-so-story" jargon, what is THEIR "literal" reading of Genesis 1 (Ge 1:3 suffices for now) that makes cosmic and biological evolution a "just-so-story"?
I mean we need to compare oranges and oranges. Literal physical evidence of deep time and history and evolution vis-a-vis a (the??) literal reading of Genesis that maps to physical reality.
I think what TS is talking about is some form a "Concordism".
Hugh Ross tried this with his OEC views and got trashed by YEC leaders as a "compromiser" for his efforts.
K54
Actually, YECs do accept the general idea of evolution. It's that they do disagree with some specifics, especially how rather novel species or new traits (e.g., the sense of smell, the subject of a current thread) originate. They call speculations about them, "just-so stories," you see. How did organisms "learn" to fly? YECs ridicule speculations about that, but offer nothing more than that God created the birds, flying insects, bats . . . Which may just have happened that way.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 PostI made slight changes to my post, but unfortunately you replied before I saved them.
Actually, YECs do accept the general idea of evolution. It's that they do disagree with some specifics, especially how rather novel species or new traits (e.g., the sense of smell, the subject of a current thread) originate. They call speculations about them, "just-so stories," you see. How did organisms "learn" to fly? YECs ridicule speculations about that, but offer nothing more than that God created the birds, flying insects, bats . . . Which may just have happened that way.
Back to Ge 1:3 -- what is a literal, physical reading of this verse.
K54
Comment
-
Originally posted by klaus54 View PostBack to Ge 1:3 -- what is a literal, physical reading of this verse.
IIRC, in the first stage of the Big Bang, the universe was rather opaque. But as it expanded, its density dropped to the point when there was plenty of light. Unfortunately this explanation does not include any role for 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 klaus54 View PostBack to Ge 1:3 -- what is a literal, physical reading of this verse.
IIRC, initially in the Big Bang, the universe was opaque. But its density eventually dropped to the point when it became relatively transparent. Unfortunately that explanation doesn't leave any room for God to do anything. But it could have set up the initial conditions for the Big Bang and then started it off.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 PostIt seems as though you are asking for a reading that has no role at all for God to perform, but that contradicts the obvious reading that God had something to do with originating the light.
IIRC, in the first stage of the Big Bang, the universe was rather opaque. But as it expanded, its density dropped to the point when there was plenty of light. Unfortunately this explanation does not include any role for God.
That's NOT what I'm asking for at all!!!!
I want a YEC Genesis literalist to tell me what it means to them. And hopefully this meaning will be as unambiguous as possible. After that we can proceed through the rest of the Genesis 1 story, grabbing the "literal" reading and then explore what the big beef is with modern science - "Science falsely so-called."
So, Truthseeker --- what does Ge 1:3 mean to you? Or don't you care?
You brought up the Big Bang -- It didn't. And by what authority on Earth or Heaven can you say that God didn't have a "hand" in it? The creation proceeds as per God's "spoken" word. It appears that the eretz and the mayyim and perhaps even the shamayim are commanded to do the creating.
Please don't try to read my mind. If you have opinions - exegetically or scientifically, express them as your own.
K54
Comment
-
Originally posted by klaus54 View PostCould creationists please comment on Genesis 1:3?
I'm trying to get a feel for the concept of a literal Genesis, since that's the main point of contention in rejecting Deep Time and evolution.
In what sense are the following literal, i.e. clearly mapped to physical reality? An unambiguous mapping would be nice.
1) God (Elohim) said... Is this speech in the sense of audible sound? Is "speech" a metaphor for God's creative power? Something else?
2) What is meant by "light" here?
K54
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mr. Anderson View PostIn itself Gen. 1:3 needs no interpretation other than it's plain reading. It says what it says.To map it to physical reality it only needs to be read as such. Any anthromorphism applied to God is for the benefit of those whom Genesis was written for and isn't necessary for the literal interpretation of what God did.
What IS the "plain" reading of "Let there be light"?
And if I parse this correctly, you're asserting that "said" is anthropomorphic "for our benefit". So it's not really speech in the sense of sound waves but in fact a metaphor for Elohim's creative power?
Ok, so far 0/1 for the literal reading of "light".
K54
Comment
-
Originally posted by klaus54 View PostOK, fine. But you've gone completely down another road from the OP.
Back to Ge 1:3 -- what is a literal, physical reading of this verse.
K54
Taken in isolation, either interpretation is equally valid. Taking external evidence into consideration ....
nothing supports the idea of "light came into being at the moment the words were said."1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
Originally posted by tabibito View PostThere is a range of literal readings available, not just one. It is a matter of determining the precise interpretation of the verse. "God said, let there be light, and there was light." - "there was light" in one interpretation could mean that light appeared immediately ... in another interpretation "there was light" could mean that light appeared in due course.
Taken in isolation, either interpretation is equally valid. Taking external evidence into consideration ....
nothing supports the idea of "light came into being at the moment the words were said."
Also, is WHEN "light" came into being ambiguous as well?
I mean to a Biblical Big-Bang-Rejecting Creationist?
Come on!
K54
P.S. My surmise is that this is written from the standpoint of ANE cosmology and philosophy. There was heaven (above) and earth (below), all was dark, then the heavens lit up. This light was then separated into day and night -- although the greater and lesser lights (sun and moon) don't appear til "Day" 4.
I want a YEC literalist to counter this with a literal physical interpretation of verse 3.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by eider, 04-14-2024, 03:22 AM
|
4 responses
27 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by eider
Today, 12:18 AM
|
||
Started by Ronson, 04-08-2024, 09:05 PM
|
41 responses
162 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Ronson
04-12-2024, 09:08 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
|
48 responses
139 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
03-20-2024, 09:13 AM
|
Comment