Genesis and science, revisited.

[MRC_Hans]

Actually, the Bible doesn't say that at all. No age of the creation can be determined through the Bible. It simply doesn't say. *snip*

Well, I guess you have to take that up with the (other) Christians.

Because it would take longer? Besides which, the Bible doesn't really support the idea of an omnipotent God.

I completely agree. But again, take it up with the Christians. They seem to think it does.

Didn't mass extinctions ensue? However, the sun was already there as I stated above.

Haha, you can't have your pie and eat it. Mass extinctions are a thing of evolution. If you accept the evidence for those, you accept evolution.

Such as?

(Shoddy design) Is being discussed at lenght elsewhere. I'm not going to derail my own thread.

Not exactly. The Hebrew term yohm is grossly misunderstood and atheists, having primarily theists dogma to go on, see it as you have described it.

Of course we go on theist dogmas. That is what we're discussing.

If you are saying that the bible is just an interesting collection of ancient myths, guess what? We'll heartily agree!

YEC doesn't make sense at all. From a Biblical or scientific standpoint.

I agree on the latter. And I'm not among those claiming that is makes sense from a biblical stantpoint. OTOH, if it doesn't, what does?

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Primitive languages are always far more difficult than their modern descendants. Languages begin in complexity and simplify over time. Languages of non-literate peoples are far more complex than modern European languages.

No, languages begin simple, evolve to complexity, and are then standardized and simplified (the latter only during the last few centuries).

The problem isn't with the deity it is with the modern "skeptic."

How on earth can it be a problem with the skeptics that theists/deists can't agree on the interpretation of their own holy scripture?

Oh, and the omnipotent deity is a fabrication of the dark ages. It isn't Biblically supported.

Mmmmm, so in your opinion, what IS Biblically supported?

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Great question, and one I am definately not in a position to answer. I approach the document as a light hearted intellectual exercise.

So do I.

A better question might be, if God did show someone the begining of the universe or the Earth, how could that person describe it with any clarity 3000 years ago?

At least, one might assume that he got the sequence right.

Whatever we make of the first book of the Bible we have to assume we are not the target audience. What ever message Genesis is trying to convey, it was lost a very long time ago

Really? I think it is simple enough: As all other creation myths, it was built from guesswork, going on what they could see and what was handed down as earlier myth.

Hans

 

[Johnny Marseilles]

The point is that some Christians claim that the bible predicts scientific discoveries.

Not so much a case of predicting but of preceding, but I get your point.

That is what I'm addressing. Presumably they mean present science (otherwise their point is moot). Future science may change, but I doubt it will find a much different sequence for the creation of earth.

As far as the typical Christian goes, you might as well ask the cat. Christians bore me, that is why I'm here talking with you. The sad part is that you, as an atheist, have very little real interest or accurate knowledge of the Bible and Genesis.

IMHO it is moot to discuss detailed semantics in a dead language. The exact meaning of those words for the people of the time can never be known for certain. Add to this that we don't even know for sure what the original wording was; we do not have a single original document.

We have a great deal more than your biased, uninformed and facetious opinion, though. Of course, you would reject an informed opinion counter to your belief, wouldn't you?

Yes, it is always interesting how recent bible translations tend to adapt to our actual knowledge.

Uh-huh.

Up until the 5th century C.E. it was thought that light was a bright vapor and darkness was a black vapor which ascended from the ground. Thousands of years before that Moses wrote in Genesis 1:14-18 that the division between light and darkness was due to the luminaries. The sun and moon.

Aristotle (384 - 322 B.C.E. believed the stars were driven into the sky like nails, and thousands of years earlier Moses described it more accurately as an expanse (Hebrew raqia, Greek stereoma, Latin firmare).

100 years ago a medical professional would go from the morgue to the birthing room without even washing his hands. Had they read Numbers 19:11-22 they would have saved countless lives.

When it comes to science or the Bible, I, like Sir Isaac Newton, who is often referred to as the father of modern science, trust the Bible.

If the Bible said the earth was created in 144 hours I would believe it without a doubt. It doesn't say that.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Not so much a case of predicting but of preceding, but I get your point.

As far as the typical Christian goes, you might as well ask the cat. Christians bore me, that is why I'm here talking with you. The sad part is that you, as an atheist, have very little real interest or accurate knowledge of the Bible and Genesis.

If you talk talk about knowledge about ancient language versions and involved interpretations, I'm guilty as charged. I have read the bible, however. Genesis many times over.

We have a great deal more than your biased, uninformed and facetious opinion, though. Of course, you would reject an informed opinion counter to your belief, wouldn't you?

Whee, nice going. Did anything in my mode of communication prompt you to turn to mud-fight methods, or is it just your normal style?

I'm an atheists, I have no beliefs, remember? Prejudices, I probably have, but who hasn't?

100 years ago a medical professional would go from the morgue to the birthing room without even washing his hands. Had they read Numbers 19:11-22 they would have saved countless lives.

Yeah, or had he taken from Arab medics, he would have known even more.

When it comes to science or the Bible, I, like Sir Isaac Newton, who is often referred to as the father of modern science, trust the Bible.

. At Newton's time it was not comme il faut to question the bible. In fact it was severely career-damaging. Had Newton happened to come in a serious dilemma between the two (like Darwin), neither you nor I can know how he would have chosen.

If the Bible said the earth was created in 144 hours I would believe it without a doubt. It doesn't say that.

Why would you have believed that?

Hans

 

[tsig]

Is there any point to these fairy stories?

They keep the riff raff off the streets Sunday morning?

 

[tsig]

I actually said he "may have"

Yes you did and when one uses the phrase 'may have' followed by a verb such as 'teach' the usual meaning is that there was an intention being expressed so if you know gods' intention then you know gods' mind.

 

[shadron]

- Genisis?

Hans

He's British. One must leave slack.

 

[MG1962]

Yes you did and when one uses the phrase 'may have' followed by a verb such as 'teach' the usual meaning is that there was an intention being expressed so if you know gods' intention then you know gods' mind.

Yes removing the context for the win.

 

[Johnny Marseilles]

At Genesis 1:4-5 God brings a division between the light, which he calls day and the dark which he calls night. From there the creation account uses the Hebrew word yohm (day) to refer to units of time of a varied length. It should be noted that both the Hebrew yohm and the Greek hemera are used in a literal, figurative or symbolic sense.

A solar day is established by a complete rotation of earth on its asix. From the time when the sun leaves a meridian, attains the highest point at midday and then returns to the meridian. The solar, or civil day is currently divided into two periods consisting of 12 hours each. The forenoon is the a.m. from the Latin ante meridiem and the afternoon is the p.m., from the Latin post meridiem.

In Bible times, however, there were various other methods of dividing the day. The Hebrew day began in the evening, after sunset and ended the next day at sunset. (Leviticus 23:32) This came from the model of the creative "days" in the creation account. (Genesis 1:5)

The Phoenician, Numidian and the Athenian day also went from evening to evening. The Babylonian day consisted of sunrise to sunrise, and the Egyptian and Roman day went from midnight to midnight just as ours does today.

The Bible divided the day into periods of morning twilight or morning darkness, just before the beginning of daylight as at Psalm 119:147 and 1 Samuel 30:17, the rising of the sun or dawning (Job 3:9), the morning (Genesis 24:54), noon or midday (Deuteronomy 28:29 / 1 Kings 18:27), sunset or the day's close (Genesis 15:12 / Joshua 8:29), and the evening twilight or evening darkness (2 Kings 7:5, 7).

The Hebrew didn't use hours to divide the day prior to the Babylonian exile. The King James Version uses the word hour at Daniel 3:6, 15; 4:19, 33 and 5:5, but the Aramaic word shaah from which it is translated literally means "a look" and is more accurately translated as a moment. At Isaiah 38:8 and 2 Kings 20:8-11 the term "the shadow of the steps" may be a reference to a sundial method of keeping time.

By the time of Jesus the days were commonly divided into two 12 hour periods, the daylight hours generally beginning at 6:00 a.m and ending at 6:00 p.m. (John 11:9) The third hour would be at 9:00 a.m. (Matthew 20:3 / Acts 2:15) and the sixth hour would have been noon. (Matthew 27:45-46 / John 4:6 / Luke 23:44, 46 / Acts 10:9-10)

The Hebrews didn't use names for the days, except the Sabbath, but days were referred to by their numerical order. The Hebrews often used the term "day and night" to mean only a portion of a solar day, as at 1 Kings 12:5, 12 and Matthew 12:40 (also see Matthew 27:62-66; 28:1-6 / Genesis 42:17-18 / Esther 4:16; 5:1).

The term day was also used as a measure of distance, such as "a day's journey" (Numbers 11:31) or "a sabbath day's journey." (Acts 1:12) The term "days" could be used to refer to a time contemporaneous with a specific person, such as "the days of Noah" or "the days of Lot." (Luke 17:26-30 / Isaiah 1:1)

Other terms also applied to periods of time of various length. The day of judgment, for example. (2 Peter 3:7 / Genesis 5:1 / 2 Corinthians 6:2 / Revelation 16:4)

 

[Marduk]

In a couple of threads, the claim that the bible (here in specific Genesis 1) makes surprisingly accurate predictions of later scientific findings has resurfaced. It has probably been done here before, but still, let's actually read Genesis 1 and see.

(I assume that it is OK to quote extensively from Genesis 1, it is hardly copyrighted)

Quoted from here: http://classic.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&version=NIV

if youre going to do this, then the New International bible won't cut it, it has been specifically edited in line with modern knowledge
e.g. heres the NIV

Genesis 1:21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
heres the Hebrew bible

Genesis 1:21 And God created the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that creepeth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after its kind, and every winged fowl after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

sea monsters, explain that one christians
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm

 

[Johnny Marseilles]

if youre going to do this, then the New International bible won't cut it, it has been specifically edited in line with modern knowledge
e.g. heres the NIV


sea monsters, explain that one christians
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm

My favorite translation also uses the term "sea monsters" with a footnote which reads "or reptiles."

It comes from the verbal root of the Hebrew term remes which means "creep" or "move about." Koehler and Baumgartner’s Hebrew and Aramaic lexicon (Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, Leiden, 1958, p. 895)

Remes covers a broad variety of creatures and distinguishes the moving animals from the wild or domestic birds, fish and beast. (Genesis 1:21, 25, 28; 6:7, 20; 7:14, 23; 8:17, 19; 9:3; Ezekiel 8:10; 38:20) It can apply to land and aquatic creatures. (Psalm 104:25)

 

[Marduk]

My favorite translation also uses the term "sea monsters" with a footnote which reads "or reptiles."

yup, Hebrew is not a static language
the KJV has

21And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

iirc the "reptiles" example is a modern rendering of "dragon", so you must be using a pretty recent translation, was it written by K.Ham ?
Remes doesnt figure in this passage, the word is "Tanniym"

 

[Johnny Marseilles]

A Religious Encyclopaedia (Vol. I, p. 613): "The days of creation were creative days, stages in the process, but not days of twenty-four hours each." - Edited by P. Schaff, 1894.

The Hebrew term yohm, translated as day in the creation account among other places, can mean any period of time from a few hours to thousands of years. Such as daylight (Proverbs 4:18), a 24-hour day (Genesis 7:17), seasons (Zechariah 14:8), many days (Proverbs 25:13 / Genesis 30:14), 1,000 years and a watch in the night (Psalm 90:4 / 2 Peter 3:8-10). The Hebrew division of a night watch consisted of three of about four hours each depending upon the time of the year. The first from about 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., the middle from about 10:00 p.m. to about 2:00 a.m. and the third from about 2:00 a.m. to sunrise. Later, as in the time of Jesus, the Roman division was used; the "late in the day" watch from sunset until about 9:00 p.m., the "midnight" watch from 9:00 p.m. until about midnight, and the "cock-crowing" watch ran from about midnight until 3:00 a.m. and from then until sunrise was the "early in the morning" watch.

The "Day of salvation" and "Judgment Day" consists of many years (Isaiah 49:8 / Matthew 10:15; 11:22-24)

Regarding the days of creation, Delitzsch, in his New Commentary on Genesis says: "Days of God are intended, with Him a thousand years are but as a day when that is past, Ps. 90:4 . . . The days of creation are, according to the meaning of Holy Scripture itself, not days of four and twenty hours, but aeons . . . For this earthly and human measurement of time cannot apply to the first three days."

God in heaven isn't subjected to the same solar cycle as those on earth. The terms "morning" and "evening" wouldn't constitute a literal 24 hour period even if God, and the angels who cried out with joy upon the completion of the creation were subject to the solar cycle or there had been humans on the earth to observe it for the first few. They are symbolic. The morning was a period when the angels observing from heaven couldn't see what was unfolding and in the evening each period of time had concluded so that they could see the intended results.

Much of the language used in the texts indicates this, as the Hebrew imperfect state, indicating progressive action is used over 40 times. The Hebrew perfect state used at Genesis 1:1 indicates completed action, and so scholars, long before science began to fully understand the age of the earth, had already concluded that the six "days" were not a literal 144 hours.

Often apologists and Young Earth Creationists confused the issue by not fully understanding the Genesis account. For example, The Harper’s Bible Dictionary states: "It is futile and unnecessary to try to reconcile the Genesis Creation account with modern science." The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (1962) referred to the creation account as mythological.

 

[Johnny Marseilles]

yup, Hebrew is not a static language
the KJV has


iirc the "reptiles" example is a modern rendering of "dragon", so you must be using a pretty recent translation, was it written by K.Ham ?
Remes doesnt figure in this passage, the word is "Tanniym"

You are absolutely right, The Hebrew tan‧ni‧nim is used in the case of the sea monsters at Genesis 1:21, that was my mistake. Remes is in reference to the "creeping" creatures I was talking about which would include the tanninim or tanniym.

Good job, and thanks for the correction, I make so many mistakes that I catch myself and wonder why no one corrects me. You must be paying attention. I also noticed that I listed the footnote as saying simply "or reptiles" when in fact it says "or great reptiles."

 

[Marduk]

Good job, and thanks for the correction, I make so many mistakes that I catch myself and wonder why no one corrects me. You must be paying attention. I also noticed that I listed the footnote as saying simply "or reptiles" when in fact it says "or great reptiles."

the great is already in the passage "great sea monster" "great whales" "great sea creatures" where great is represented with the hebrew word "gadowl"
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H1419&t=KJV
so your footnote emphasising "great" again, seems to be shouting "dinosaur" rather than "dragon", though to many fundamentalists they are the same thing. That brings your bible into the 1970s
is it the NIV or the NKJV

 

[Johnny Marseilles]

the great is already in the passage "great sea monster" "great whales" "great sea creatures" where great is represented with the hebrew word "gadowl"
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H1419&t=KJV
so your footnote emphasising "great" again, seems to be shouting "dinosaur" rather than "dragon", though to many fundamentalists they are the same thing. That brings your bible into the 1970s
is it the NIV or the NKJV

You have to know, eh? I'm probably going to get hell for this, but it is the best translation out there. Its The New World Translation

 

[Marduk]

You have to know, eh? I'm probably going to get hell for this, but it is the best translation out there. Its The New World Translation

I agree its one of the better ones, but its still not the original, if you don't understand Hebrew yourself why not just go for one translated into English by real Hebrew experts
yanno, Jews

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Publication_Society_of_America_Version
I use this version, from 1917
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
most often for comparisins with the KJV,
theres also an online a 1985 version
http://www.taggedtanakh.org/Home/About
click on books, top left
of course, you won't find any New Testament stuff, just the old Pagan Testament
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pagan

 

[Al Fresco]

Quote:
"Oh, and the omnipotent deity is a fabrication of the dark ages. It isn't Biblically supported."

Really?

Rev. 19:6 – “… for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.”
Jer. 32:17 – “… and there is nothing too hard for thee [Lord God].”
Jer. 32:27 – “… is there anything too hard for me [the Lord]?”
Luke 1:37 – “For God nothing shall be impossible.”
Luke 18:27 – “… the things that are impossible with men are possible with God.”

 

[Marduk]

Quote:
"Oh, and the omnipotent deity is a fabrication of the dark ages. It isn't Biblically supported."

Really?

Rev. 19:6 – “… for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.”
Jer. 32:17 – “… and there is nothing too hard for thee [Lord God].”
Jer. 32:27 – “… is there anything too hard for me [the Lord]?”
Luke 1:37 – “For God nothing shall be impossible.”
Luke 18:27 – “… the things that are impossible with men are possible with God.”

those translations were all after the dark ages, the word in greek for instance that translates to "omnipotent" in rev 19:6 is the greek word pantokratōr
which translates directly as "almighty",

Almighty, omnipotent, I can see the connection but you'd have to have an existing bias to choose the latter word over the former, because Almighty means the same thing, Omnipotent is derived from latin, almighty from greek. though the latin vulgate was the first translation into latin and dates to the 4thCE it was only available to the clergy and was hideously expensive. the public had to wait for the printing press, which is probably what was being alluded to there as the statement you responded to only makes sense from a historic textual basis.

Gods have been described as omnipotent from the get go