In the Beginning...

[Sommerswerd]

They stars were not created, they were made. Right. So they weren't there before, they were made, but not created.

I think maybe he means "designated" not "made"... in the sense that god didn't actually construct the stars with his Civ World builder program mighty godmagic... the stars were already there and god just said "Hey you Mr. Sun! Sun! Mr. Golden Sun! Yes, please accept your appointment of day-manger, with health benefits, and 401K... Moon, I'm going need you to go ahead and be closing-shift manager, sucks to be you."

At least that's what I think he (Berzerker) is trying to say Genesis means.

 

[timtofly]

Tehom is the abyss, the deep, and its surface was covered by the waters, not space. This world had a crust, it was submerged. The Earth (dry land) wasn't revealed until the 3rd day. God could not have created dry land in the beginning if it didn't become dry land until the 3rd day. Heaven and Earth were created on different days and neither was created on or before the 1st... Your interpretation has God creating Heaven and Earth twice.

You claim that Genesis does not have God creating anything, and then you accuse me of saying that God created things twice. If you were at least consistent in your interpretation, you would see that I only claim God created everything one time in verse 1.

Your claim that God did not create anything, does not fit the narrative. You keep claiming that the words "made" , "let there be", and "create" = create, and then you claim they do not to argue your point.

Earth, air, and water were elements. Fire is the only thing that is missing unless you take Sitchin's interpretation and lightning is fire.


I keep saying there was nothing there but matter, and you keep claiming that I think that it is a solid called dirt. I said the word earth was a place holder to signify a future planet, but there was no planet, because it had not solidified yet. Why would I think that the planet had solidified, when it was described as being empty and looked like a swirling black hole. It was not a black hole either, because nothing is mentioned about things being sucked into a vortex. It just looked like one, because it was not solid, and you could see through it into space like looking into an abyss and seeing the other side. Even the term abyss is misleading, and some translations do not use it, because an abyss usually has some form to it, other wise it would just be looking at empty space. I did say there was swirling matter. Before we defined matter, the closest thing was the element called earth. We now know that there are particles smaller than bits of dust.

Heaven was used to divide the waters and Earth is the dry land, neither is the water and both were "created" later in the story.

Nothing was created later in the story. Not sure why you say I make that claim, when I do not, and yet you say that God did not create anything, and then turn around and say that heaven and earth was created later. If all the planets pre-existed, why even claim the Genesis account keeps creating them when that goes against your argument?

Gen 1:2 says the dry land was without form, it was covered by the deep/water. It became dry land on the 3rd day.

I agree that it became solid earth later. It cannot be called dry land if it had no form. It was formless matter, and God called it earth, because that is the spot in space that would become the earth. This statement makes sense, but it also does not support your claim that earth came from a place further away from the sun. Covered by deep water, is not the definition of not having form. That would just indicate a planet covered with water that had the form of a planet. Having no form = no planet. Water is the element that describes anything that is not a solid, or air, or fire. Air, fire and water, are basically the same matter in different forms. They are all forms of "gases". Of course water can be all three states, gas, liquid, and solid. You could see through this matter, that is why it is called empty.

Tehom was the pre-Earth and it was covered by water.

Nope, tehom and tiamat both represent the condition of space before the sun and stars became energized. Tehom was not just earth, it was the condition through out the universe for every planet and star. Tehom is the deep. Veha'aretz is the pre-earth.

In the enuma elish tiamat is a goddess of the waters. In the Genesis account, tehom is just space, and the water is just an element.

The Mesopotamian Heaven was a hammered out bracelet, a chunk of metal is heated and pounded into a circular band. God placed this band of hammered metal amidst the waters, dividing them into the waters above Heaven and the waters below Heaven - the waters below still covered this world for one more day and then they were gathered together to form seas thereby revealing the Earth/dry land .

The enumah elish does not mention a bracelet. It just says that Marduk rips Tiamat in half creating earth and sky. I posted that the Latin translation introduced the error of the metal bracelet from a Greek source. Latin and Greek cultures came years after the Babylonian and Mesopotamian text. How could the error even be in the originals unless there was time travel?

And orbiting the sun at the asteroid belt.

In physics there is no orbiting without gravity. If the matter had no form there would be no gravitational force either. Genesis clearly defines a creation event, not a manipulation of planet event.

Because the beginning in Genesis refers to Heaven and Earth, not the universe.

Heaven and earth, tehom and formless matter is the condition of the universe. The earth and heaven today are not separate from the universe. They are still considered part of the universe.

Not to mention again, but even you say that heaven and earth do not appear until later. So the only sense is that the words together in verse 1 signify the state of the universe, and the term for the universe being the two words together is the same then as it is now. If there was no change in condition, there would be no purpose in the narrative at all, and yet it starts the Bible out to show how everything began.

The stars were not created, they were made to serve for signs and seasons and to illuminate the dry land .

I agree that God gave them the energy to shine, and that they were not created then, but in verse 1. Even in verse one, they were only matter, without energy. All matter was created by God throughout the universe, and given form and energy at the appropriate time(s).

I dont, the asteroid belt is the hammered bracelet....

There is no mention of an asteroid belt in any version of the creation myth in history, except this thread, and the other threads in cfc. They were only added to astrology in the last 200~ years. Astrologers did go back and grab ancient gods or goddesses, but the ancients had no knowledge of the asteroid belt nor used them in astrology.

Thats how Gen 1:2 describes this world before the dry land and life appeared.

Genesis describes the pre-earth as being empty with no form at all, and looking at it was like looking through an abyss and seeing only space. Tehom being the abyss and void nature of space.

Genesis doesn't say God made Heaven firm, it says he placed something firm amidst the water and called it Heaven.

I agree, and heaven is the atmosphere. I do not agree that God "placed" something "firm". Gases are not solids. Basically it just says that God spread out the waters which is the same thing as dividing them. It does not mention how or what was placed there. The assumption would be the same gases that are there now.

When, in the beginning, The Lord created the Heaven and the Earth, The Earth, not yet formed, was in the void, and there was darkness upon Tiamat.
Then the Wind of the Lord swept upon its waters and the Lord commanded,
“Let there be lightning!” and there was a bright light.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sitchin/genesisrevisto/genrevisit03.htm

Still the same format as all the Mesopotamian myths, except the one of the Hebrews, because they believed that God created everything that humans can view, and myriads of other things that humans cannot observe directly.

The argument is that the Mesopotamian myths came first, and the Hebrews took one of the gods and elevated it to create a narrative. A more sensible view would be that the Hebrew account was the original, and every one else changed it to fit their fictional gods. The ancients saw gods in the stars and turned them into myths. The Hebrews claimed there was only one God outside of the universe, who created all things and he is the only existence. The only way they knew that was because God interacted with them and told them. Even the addition of aliens in history or immortal humans came from beings that God created. I believe that Adam was one of them, but I have no proof or strong evidence other than the account of Adam was separate from the rest of the creation account. It was about how humans are in their current condition instead of being immortals, angels, demons, or gods themselves.

The trend in thought is that God created beings that would become like him one way or the other. The closest thing would be humans creating robots that would become human. We are said to be in similitude to God like robots are in similitude to humans.

No, which is why God is unfalsifiable and outside the realm of science.

I agree. God is outside of the universe and not part of science. The observable universe is not all there is, and science is the limited item in the equation, as it can only be used for what can be observed. Science is the tool to learn new things that cannot be directly observed, but it can hardly explain everything there is about the universe, and has not explained away even astrology. The most common expression being coincidence. If one thinks that, then it is just an illusionary expression, even if science makes everything look temporal and observable.

What I do not understand is that humans deny the ability that God has to reveal who God is to them, and the opportunities that can be verified and falsified. Humans still have the ability to accept or reject the outcome or meaning of the experiences they have. They tend to only accept what can be observable from a scientific standpoint. A point which is ongoing and methodical and is limited. What they are looking for may never be revealed in their lifetime, like it was in the past.

... and thus unsuitable to be taught in school as an "alternative" to evolution.

I agree they should not be taught as alternatives, but would not evolution be an alternative because it came last? Just because something comes last and everything else was ruled out, does not make it the truth. It just means that is what humans have settled on to believe. It was more a democratic decision, and not an actual human pronouncement that created a universal truth. I thought science was not about creating absolute truths? It is just a methodology to discover what has always been.

Even evolution has not been proclaimed as the origin of existence. It is the process of change from that which already existed. Even most of that is assumed, as we cannot directly observe all the "hurdles" that have been alleged to have happened. Even the ancients thought that a god or goddess evolved life from the primordial waters. Hinduism is the constant circle of life creating new life in a never ending fashion. Evolution is just a method that some accept as a foolproof alternative to all the alternatives that have been given for the Genesis account.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

There is no mention of an asteroid belt in any version of the creation myth in history, except this thread, and the other threads in cfc. They were only added to astrology in the last 200~ years. Astrologers did go back and grab ancient gods or goddesses, but the ancients had no knowledge of the asteroid belt nor used them in astrology.

This is one of the few things you've said that I agree with. It's ludicrous, not to mention dishonest, to retroactively insert modern knowledge into ancient mythology and claim the ancients who made up those myths knew about the modern knowledge all along.

The argument is that the Mesopotamian myths came first, and the Hebrews took one of the gods and elevated it to create a narrative. A more sensible view would be that the Hebrew account was the original, and every one else changed it to fit their fictional gods.

This makes no sense. It's ridiculous to claim that older civilizations copied newer civilizations, particularly when there was no temporal overlap at all. Do you honestly mean to suggest that civilizations thousands of years older than that of the Hebrews, and who were extinct by the time the Hebrews emerged as a separate civilization, copied the Hebrew myths?

Science ... has not explained away even astrology.

What hasn't been explained about astrology? It pseudoscientific nonsense that's currently used to sell magazines and scam people at "psychic fairs." It's inspired pretty artwork and fanciful tales, and even I've got the DVD collection of Xena: Warrior Princess and a season or two of Hercules. But I'd never mistake either of them as portraying real history or real science. They're just stories.

According to astrology, I'm a Gemini, and the planet Mercury is supposedly important in there somewhere. I looked up a list of traits that such people are supposed to have, and yeah, it fits to a fair extent - enough to fool my young teenage self into believing there was anything to it, before I got cured of such nonsensical notions. But the fact is that I'd have these traits no matter what time of year I was born.

I agree they should not be taught as alternatives, but would not evolution be an alternative because it came last? Just because something comes last and everything else was ruled out, does not make it the truth. It just means that is what humans have settled on to believe. It was more a democratic decision, and not an actual human pronouncement that created a universal truth. I thought science was not about creating absolute truths? It is just a methodology to discover what has always been.

Evolution is not what people have "settled on to believe" as though it's the "belief du jour" that people voted on. That shows a woeful lack of awareness of the overwhelming amount of evidence that's all around us.

 

[Arakhor]

A more sensible view would be that the Hebrew account was the original, and every one else changed it to fit their fictional gods.

Given that the Egyptian culture pre-dated the Hebrew culture by quite a lot, that is certainly not a particularly sensible view.

 

[Lexicus]

I agree they should not be taught as alternatives, but would not evolution be an alternative because it came last? Just because something comes last and everything else was ruled out, does not make it the truth. It just means that is what humans have settled on to believe. It was more a democratic decision, and not an actual human pronouncement that created a universal truth. I thought science was not about creating absolute truths? It is just a methodology to discover what has always been.

That's correct, and what makes evolution 'the truth' is that it's been repeatedly subjected to attempts to disprove it which have all failed.

 

[onejayhawk]

That's correct, and what makes evolution 'the truth' is that it's been repeatedly subjected to attempts to disprove it which have all failed.

That does not make it the truth. It makes it a viable theory. Unfortunately, it is not a tractable theory, but that's another thread.

J

 

[Lexicus]

That does not make it the truth.

I put the phrase in quotes for a reason; but actually, the fact that evolution has been tested so thoroughly means that it is the closest thing we have to "the truth."

What do you mean by 'tractable theory'? That makes no sense to me.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Of course evolution is true. We may not know everything about it, but we know enough to declare that it is real.

 

[Lexicus]

I'm talking about the theory of evolution, not the observed fact of evolution.

 

[onejayhawk]

I put the phrase in quotes for a reason; but actually, the fact that evolution has been tested so thoroughly means that it is the closest thing we have to "the truth."

What do you mean by 'tractable theory'? That makes no sense to me.

The basic framework seems to work. The details are not so easy. The boat hangs together but it leaks when put in the water.

Of course evolution is true. We may not know everything about it, but we know enough to declare that it is real.

Uh, no. It's like democratic governments. It's awful until you start examining the alternatives.

There are a usually unacceptable number of blind leaps in the process. At every time scale, there is at least one major unexplained transition. Cosmologists, volcanologists, geologists, paleontologists, molecular biologists, botanists, zoologists, pick your specialization, life science or physical science, they all have significant disagreement within their specialty about one or more significant steps. The broad brushstrokes of the process are settled science. That is all.

I find it comforting. The world is a preposterously unlikely place, one in however many powers of ten it is. It explains why we seem to be alone.

J

 

[Lexicus]

The basic framework seems to work. The details are not so easy. The boat hangs together but it leaks when put in the water.

Utter nonsense.

At every time scale, there is at least one major unexplained transition.

False.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The basic framework seems to work. The details are not so easy. The boat hangs together but it leaks when put in the water.


Uh, no. It's like democratic governments. It's awful until you start examining the alternatives.

There are a usually unacceptable number of blind leaps in the process. At every time scale, there is at least one major unexplained transition. Cosmologists, volcanologists, geologists, paleontologists, molecular biologists, botanists, zoologists, pick your specialization, life science or physical science, they all have significant disagreement within their specialty about one or more significant steps. The broad brushstrokes of the process are settled science. That is all.

I find it comforting. The world is a preposterously unlikely place, one in however many powers of ten it is. It explains why we seem to be alone.

J

Unexplained is fine. We'll get there. The puzzle is sufficiently complete that we can see the picture even if there are holes not yet filled in.

 

[abradley]

The basic framework seems to work. The details are not so easy. The boat hangs together but it leaks when put in the water.

{Snip}

Rather like Ptolemy's explanation of the universe, it seemed right until Heliocentric was proven.

Don't get me wrong, IMO The Theory of Evolution is the most plausible, but to me it's still an unproven theory.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Don't get me wrong, IMO The Theory of Evolution is the most plausible, but to me it's still an unproven theory.

Regardless, the Genesis version of creation has already been proven wrong.

 

[Lexicus]

There's no such thing as a 'proven theory.'

 

[timtofly]

This is one of the few things you've said that I agree with. It's ludicrous, not to mention dishonest, to retroactively insert modern knowledge into ancient mythology and claim the ancients who made up those myths knew about the modern knowledge all along.

What the ancients knew would be it's own thread. I do not think that the suppression of knowledge happened only once. It has happened multiple times, and humans seem to have to discover it all over again.

This makes no sense. It's ridiculous to claim that older civilizations copied newer civilizations, particularly when there was no temporal overlap at all. Do you honestly mean to suggest that civilizations thousands of years older than that of the Hebrews, and who were extinct by the time the Hebrews emerged as a separate civilization, copied the Hebrew myths?

That would be part of the suppression of knowledge, yes. I just finished reading the Enuma Elish that Berzerker linked to. The translated copies into English are linked in that site. It is pretty telling that in one translation, this "planet" Marduk, which the account is referring to was said to be the builder of the tower of babel in Babylon. If the account is already turning the builders of the tower into gods, then it had to be far enough away from the event to make it sound like a supernatural story. But I am not surprised because the Egyptians looked at some of their human leaders as "gods'.

If you don't throw the Bible out with the "bath" water, then Abraham who was considered the first Hebrew, only lived less than 300 years after the building of the Tower of Babel. One non-biblical account claims that Abraham refused to help build the tower, but that could be an exaggeration. The established time period for the Akkadian empire puts it's beginning at around 2300 BC. Archeology puts the Sumerians living in the same area from 5000 BC with their height in 2900 and then being culturally encompassed by the Akkadians. Even the Epic of Gilgamesh which was written way before the Enuma Elis is a lot more conservative. The reason the Bible is rejected is because it is the most conservative.

What hasn't been explained about astrology? It pseudoscientific nonsense that's currently used to sell magazines and scam people at "psychic fairs." It's inspired pretty artwork and fanciful tales, and even I've got the DVD collection of Xena: Warrior Princess and a season or two of Hercules. But I'd never mistake either of them as portraying real history or real science. They're just stories.

Because if it has been completely explained away, no one would participate in it at all.

According to astrology, I'm a Gemini, and the planet Mercury is supposedly important in there somewhere. I looked up a list of traits that such people are supposed to have, and yeah, it fits to a fair extent - enough to fool my young teenage self into believing there was anything to it, before I got cured of such nonsensical notions. But the fact is that I'd have these traits no matter what time of year I was born.

Would you have those traits? That seems to be a very certain statement that cannot be tested, because you can not have a birth do-over. I don't believe in the stuff either, but that is not to say, I may in the future fall susceptible to it.

Evolution is not what people have "settled on to believe" as though it's the "belief du jour" that people voted on. That shows a woeful lack of awareness of the overwhelming amount of evidence that's all around us.

I never said that. I was addressing the way it is taught in public schools. Humans do not push a curriculum through the education board unless they believe in it. There may not be a specific vote in every single case, but the vote of popular opinion is not entirely out of the picture. The US and Canada are still pretty much democratic and the public voice is still heard or allowed to speak, even though it may not be adhered to in all cases.

Given that the Egyptian culture pre-dated the Hebrew culture by quite a lot, that is certainly not a particularly sensible view.

Seeing that the Sumerians cultural heritage, which the Hebrews were more a part of than the Egyptians, preceded the Egyptians by about 2000 years, I would say yes it is. Especially since around 2000 BC, Egypt was overwhelmed by a Canaanite, or Akkadian group of settlers which more than likely changed history for them in more ways than just culture.

 

[abradley]

Regardless, the Genesis version of creation has already been proven wrong.

No problem, am catholic, we've never taken the Old Testament literally.

That said, did enjoy Noah, liked it's mixing in the Jewish bites.

 

[abradley]

There's no such thing as a 'proven theory.'

Would just post , but not allowed to.

 

[Lexicus]

Well, from the person who thinks saying something is an 'unproven theory' is in any way significant, I take it as a compliment.

There is, again, no such thing as a 'proven theory.' Like, literally, no theory has ever been proven, because that's not how science works...you have proofs in math. In science you just have failure to disprove.

 

[Agent327]

Don't get me wrong, IMO The Theory of Evolution is the most plausible, but to me it's still an unproven theory.

Ah, you're not up to date with the latest in biology. (Latest being everything since 1860.) Interesting. FYI, evolution has been a scientific theory since within a year of Darwin's publication of Origin of Species. And scientific theory means that you may consider both evolution and relativity fact. If to you it is not, that only means you're lacking in knowledge.