Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

View on Genesis 1:1-2:3

Page 1 of 5 [ 66 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

View on Genesis 1:1 - 2:3
Created in six sidereal days about 6000 years ago 14%  14%  [ 6 ]
Created in six periods of undetermined time 19%  19%  [ 8 ]
Gap between 1:1 and 1:2 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Literary framework hypothesis 2%  2%  [ 1 ]
God created everything, that's all I can say! 2%  2%  [ 1 ]
Mankind is the only special creation 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Non-Biblical view 62%  62%  [ 26 ]
Total votes : 42

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

29 Nov 2007, 9:04 am

What's your perspective?

Mine is:

(1) I take it as it reads. Why interpret it to death to make it say something it doesn't?



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

29 Nov 2007, 10:12 am

By that I mean I'm a young earth creationist.



monty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,741

29 Nov 2007, 10:45 am

All religions have creation myths. Accepting them literally requires rejecting science and distorting the truth.

Quote:
Myth (noun)

1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.

dictionary.com



Gromit
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 May 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,302
Location: In Cognito

29 Nov 2007, 10:57 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Mine is:

(1) I take it as it reads. Why interpret it to death to make it say something it doesn't?

According to a creationist I heard on radio, one reason is that the Hebrew word which gets translated as "day" in Genesis has several different meanings, only one them being "day, another being a lengthy but not clearly specified length of time. The word also shows up in three other places in the bible, and when you look at all four cases and assume the word has the same meaning throughout the bible, you can't call it a day. It's possible that it's meant to be a day in Genesis and other periods of time elsewhere in the Bible, but do you have a specific reason for that? If you want the simplest option, why not assume the same meaning throughout the Bible?

A second reason is that if both the Bible and the universe are the works of the same author, then the interpretation of 6 days about 6000 years ago is so much at odds with the estimates you get from looking at the universe that you must conclude that one or the other is a lie. Either the book is wrong, or God made the universe look different from what it is, for example by creating light that seems to come from galaxies millions of light years away. If you assume God to be deceptive, what can you believe?



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

29 Nov 2007, 11:41 am

That someone of reasonable intelligence can literally accept the words of the Bible which are so totally in conflict with the discovered evidence as to the creation and age of the universe is, to me, simply astounding.



Capriccio
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 21 Nov 2007
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 231

29 Nov 2007, 12:32 pm

The book of Genesis is a historical account, and is going to naturally read differently from the sections in the Bible concerning prophecy, where the terminology is symbolic. The context of the text itself makes it an applaudable literal day... "and there was evening, and there was morning, the first day."

And it's true; either the Bible has got it wrong, or scientists have got it wrong. To try and get the Bible to fit an evolutionary worldview really requires too much imagination.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

29 Nov 2007, 1:39 pm

Capriccio wrote:
The book of Genesis is a historical account, and is going to naturally read differently from the sections in the Bible concerning prophecy, where the terminology is symbolic. The context of the text itself makes it an applaudable literal day... "and there was evening, and there was morning, the first day."

And it's true; either the Bible has got it wrong, or scientists have got it wrong. To try and get the Bible to fit an evolutionary worldview really requires too much imagination.


No kidding. I say some scientists have it wrong and some have it right. It's the evolutionary worldview that some scientists hold that I disagree with, not science.

Quote:
According to a creationist I heard on radio, one reason is that the Hebrew word which gets translated as "day" in Genesis has several different meanings, only one them being "day, another being a lengthy but not clearly specified length of time. The word also shows up in three other places in the bible, and when you look at all four cases and assume the word has the same meaning throughout the bible, you can't call it a day. It's possible that it's meant to be a day in Genesis and other periods of time elsewhere in the Bible, but do you have a specific reason for that? If you want the simplest option, why not assume the same meaning throughout the Bible?


Because a word's mean depends on its surrounding text:

Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

The word for day is the same in both instances but the first it refers to the light period of a day and the second refers to a period of earth rotation. "Day" when it is light outside in the morning and "Night" when it's dark during the evening. A complete "day" having both an evening and a morning. It is the same word, but in its context the meaning is defined.

The simplest answer is not always correct, especially when dealing with complex subjects.

As for starlight I accept the whitehole cosmology in Starlight and Time by Russell Humphreys. Radiometric dating, meh, it is more like fashionable number crunching.



Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

29 Nov 2007, 1:45 pm

Sand wrote:
That someone of reasonable intelligence can literally accept the words of the Bible which are so totally in conflict with the discovered evidence as to the creation and age of the universe is, to me, simply astounding.


If so many people believe the Bible, and that fact is really "astounding" to you, I guess the logical indication is that you need to open your mind more until you understand why.


_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.


Last edited by Ragtime on 29 Nov 2007, 3:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

monty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,741

29 Nov 2007, 2:00 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Radiometric dating, meh, it is more like fashionable number crunching.


X-ray Images? Aaach!. Just black and white pictures that are like roscharch tests. The doctors should give up photography and try practicing medicine.



spdjeanne
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 390
Location: Earth

29 Nov 2007, 2:49 pm

IMO The creation story of the Bible is not literally true. Taking it as literal truth is to misunderstand the genera to which the narrative belongs. Having said that, I do believe that there are elements of reality in the story as there are in most mythologies. They point of the story is to describe the relationship between humans and God, not to provide scientific data.



Capriccio
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 21 Nov 2007
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 231

29 Nov 2007, 3:03 pm

spdjeanne wrote:
IMO The creation story of the Bible is not literally true. Taking it as literal truth is to misunderstand the genera to which the narrative belongs. Having said that, I do believe that there are elements of reality in the story as there are in most mythologies. They point of the story is to describe the relationship between humans and God, not to provide scientific data.


Why is this?



spdjeanne
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 390
Location: Earth

29 Nov 2007, 3:05 pm

Capriccio wrote:
spdjeanne wrote:
IMO The creation story of the Bible is not literally true. Taking it as literal truth is to misunderstand the genera to which the narrative belongs. Having said that, I do believe that there are elements of reality in the story as there are in most mythologies. They point of the story is to describe the relationship between humans and God, not to provide scientific data.


Why is this?


Why is it not?



greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

29 Nov 2007, 4:03 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
As for starlight I accept the whitehole cosmology in Starlight and Time by Russell Humphreys. Radiometric dating, meh, it is more like fashionable number crunching.

The question is why accept this and reject other stuff? if it is just because it appeals to you more for not contradicting the Bible while others do, I understand, however it doesn't make things accurate just because it goes with dogmatic christian beliefs, as a scientist if you are limited to what a religious book like the Bible says, less likely you would get an actually objective result when studying some things including the starlight thing for example. One of the reasons for not considering such things as true science is because there is no place for doubt, in such cases.


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

29 Nov 2007, 4:15 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
What's your perspective?

Mine is:

(1) I take it as it reads. Why interpret it to death to make it say something it doesn't?

well, I suppose it is for explaining it in a way that it could make more sense in an era with scientific advances and knowledge, as I can say a literal explanation had a lot more sense back then that it is now to a lot of people, because of that.


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

29 Nov 2007, 4:23 pm

spdjeanne wrote:
Capriccio wrote:
spdjeanne wrote:
IMO The creation story of the Bible is not literally true. Taking it as literal truth is to misunderstand the genera to which the narrative belongs. Having said that, I do believe that there are elements of reality in the story as there are in most mythologies. They point of the story is to describe the relationship between humans and God, not to provide scientific data.


Why is this?


Why is it not?


Because if God just wanted to show His relationship to us He could of just stopped at Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. But He didn't, he detailed:

Day 1, light.
Day 2, stretched out the heavens.
Day 3, formed the surface of the earth and created plants.
Day 4, Sun, moon and stars (including the wanderers.)
Day 5, sea creatures and flying creatures.
Day 6, land animals and Adam then Eve.
Day 7, rested from creating and blessed this day.

Why the detail if it's just to show relationship? He could have just said, "I made you: get over yourself." But He didn't.

I have read the Epic of Gilgamesh and its creation account is way off -working with pre-existing materials to make things (like Ishtar threw a rock and made a man to make out with and such weird nonsense of the like.) The only thing good I found in it was a description of Noah building the Ark with paid workers, however, unlike the Bible, the Babylonian Ark was a cube with 7 levels and not a wide bottomed rectangular solid with 3 levels.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

29 Nov 2007, 4:34 pm

greenblue wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
As for starlight I accept the whitehole cosmology in Starlight and Time by Russell Humphreys. Radiometric dating, meh, it is more like fashionable number crunching.

The question is why accept this and reject other stuff? if it is just because it appeals to you more for not contradicting the Bible while others do, I understand, however it doesn't make things accurate just because it goes with dogmatic Christian beliefs, as a scientist if you are limited to what a religious book like the Bible says, less likely you would get an actually objective result when studying some things including the starlight thing for example. One of the reasons for not considering such things as true science is because there is no place for doubt, in such cases.


http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Cosmology.html

Not a Christian link, these cosmologies and others are just guessing games until more data is available. I like Humphrey's cosmology because it explains redshift, background radiation and why there is old starlight.