That image is one of photoshop's contributions to science and world education.
In the Beginning...
- Thread starter Berzerker
- Start date
Well, whilst I accept it as read that God could have enacted the Genesis story precisely as stated, literally and without metaphor, that simply does not square with modern science as we understand it. However, I accept that this was simply the inadequate knowledge of a displaced people writing down their oral histories some 2,500 years ago and such does not in any way harm the essential message of Judaism or Christianity.
Unfortunately, there are seemingly millions of people in the modern world who are not nearly so sanguine about these inconsistencies and I believe that in the end those that would seek to force the literal view upon everyone else are weakening the power of the Word with their actions.
Unfortunately, there are seemingly millions of people in the modern world who are not nearly so sanguine about these inconsistencies and I believe that in the end those that would seek to force the literal view upon everyone else are weakening the power of the Word with their actions.
Berserker, when did the aliens who created humans leave the planet?
Berzerker
Deity
I dont read the creation story literally and I dont believe its describing the origin of the universe. I've said that several times already...
The sequence of events is not disjointed, day 1 saw the world given a new rotation because of the collision(s) - separation of night and day. Day 2 was the Heaven - the hammered out bracelet (the debris trails marking the scene of the battle) - placed amidst the waters and day 3 saw the waters below gathered together to form seas thereby revealing the dry land called Earth along with the implantation of the seed of life as a result of those collisions. Then Earth's sky is described on the 4th day...
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
It would seem that forcing any ideology on another person in any form is not productive, but why lie, when the truth is just as powerful. The argument is not on a physical level any ways, and if that is the only front, it is bound to fail to produce a result. Calling the Word a lie, and sowing doubt, seems by far more damaging, than presenting it as it is written. If Jesus presented the Word as written to the chief of the spiritual world who opposes God, can we do any better?
Was the earth rotating differently twice, once before and again after the collision near the asteroid belt? That is where you said the waters were separated.
Berzerker
Deity
I provided links to Fremont, Incan and Sumerian cosmology and all 3 depict celestial imagery at the top with terrestrial imagery below. Are you denying VA 243 and the Incan "Genesis" show stars and/or planets above Earthly scenes? Would you like more links following the same pattern? The Dendera Zodiac and burial chambers of Chinese emperors had ceilings painted to reflect the sky.
When people depicted their cosmology where do you think they should have placed the celestial realm if not above the terrestrial? Your complaint is illogical, ancient peoples were in the habit of placing their sky above the land - they made that separation, not me.
Do those seals show stars above or below other images or do they fail to separate them at all?
Just how many seals should have been devoted to the same image? And I didn't choose it, Sitchin found the seal and interpreted it based on the Enuma Elish.
No I didn't, it represents the Abzu/Sun surrounded by 11 orbs representing the planets of our solar system. In many other images the Earth was represented by 7 dots or a 7-pointed star, but not on VA 243. On that seal Earth is just one of the 11 orbs around the central star.
Because the Mesopotamians used seals for all sorts of information. If you walk into a library how many books should be about cosmology or creation? All of them?
There is the myth of the angry, disappearing God common in the Middle East. While these may be tied into fertility rites and seasons, ie vegetation cycles, they appear more prolific in the 1st millennium BC. Their planet's orbit and position was a factor in their coming and going, but I dont know if they all left or not. When does Jesus return?
Sitchin believes the Flood was triggered by the approach of Nibiru/Marduk about 13 kya. If he's right and the orbit of the Lord takes ~3,600 years then it was nearby ~9,400 years ago, 5,800 (or 3,800 BC, about the origin date of the Nippurian calendar), and 2,200 years or 200 BC.
Berzerker
Deity
I dont know if the primordial water covered world of Gen 1:2 was spinning or not. All we're told is it was in darkness suggesting a more distant orbit from the sun.
Yet you do appear to be claiming that a literal reading matches the scientific theories concerning the formation of the Earth and its life. If not, we have a much bigger problem in this thread than a pseudo-scientist's alternative views on ancient carvings.
The Word is the message of God, not every literal collection of letters on a page that has somehow allegedly transmitted its exact and unchanging meaning over 2,500 years and dozens of translations in many different languages. In fact, the Word is God, if you take John 1 literally. Suggesting then that God himself (or indeed his message) is a lie, simply because the earliest writings about his works are not scientifically rigorous, is totally missing the point.
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
Current cosmology states that the sun and earth formed at the same time. Check
The sun started shining, and the earth started rotating at the appropriate 24 hour speed at the same time. Check
The earth germinates plant life. Check
There was life in the oceans. Check
There was life on the land. Check
The Babylonians taught evolution. Check
The Hebrews were creationist. Check
The only thing that has changed in the last 2500 years is technology.
What point am I missing?
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
I thought that at the minimum, we were talking about Genesis, and at the most the Torah. My bad, for not realizing you were talking about the whole Bible. In the NT when they were referencing and quoting God's Word, none of the NT was even written yet. Mark and Luke would have been the earliest. John probably wrote all his about the same time, but separately, because the apostles and Paul, who accompanied Mark and Luke went their separate ways, to cover as much territory as they could in their lifetimes. It was much later that their writings were even gathered together into a single body.
I would like to add that we still have the Hebrew, and seeing as how we still have it in it's original form, it really does not matter if it has been translated many times. In fact, compared to the Latin translation, you can see how the translators started to change the text and how it affected later versions. We still have the Hebrew form if not the originals. We still have the Greek translations. We have scholars who have created a lexicon that shows the original and quite a host of translations to compare the changes. It would seem to me that people have no excuse when it comes to figuring out what is what. The only issue I see is the period between Moses and the time the Nation split into the Northern Kingdom, and the Southern Kingdom. The Hebrews were not leaving their writings in Stone. They were using multiple copies as testament of their covenant with God. Copying the Torah was a rite of passage for those desiring to carry on that covenant. Yes there were thousands of Hebrews who may have not cared and followed after other gods. I hardly see that as corrupting and influencing the preservation of God's Word. If Jesus and his followers thought there were issues would that not have been the time to point out what was wrong? It would seem that Jesus would have also been in on all the deception if there had been any. I just do not see any reason why future generations would need to be deceived. The views held in the Jewish tradition about the Torah are many and varied. Some claim that it existed even before the World, and God wrote it out before the earth was formed. Some claim it was the "blue print" of creation. Jesus as the Word was also that "blue print" of Creation. Those thoughts may seem foreign to our way of thinking, but not to the humans living at Jesus' time, and Jesus as the Christ being one and the same either was proclaiming the Truth or the lie started way before the universe began.
Berzerker
Deity
Why does that create a much bigger problem?
On with our list:
So you missed the bit where the question whether the Bible is actually God's word is debatable?
You seem to be discussing an unwritten NT. Where can we find that exactly?
The NT authors aren't the apostles. Only most of Paul's letters are actually from Paul. (It's interesting, by the way, how you seem to know things about the apostles nobody else does, seeing as these can't be found in the NT.)
The Bible wasn't written in Hebrew to begin with. which kind of disparages the rest of your musings and 'observations'.
No, it really, really doesn't.
No.
That's not even remotely accurate.
No.
Most of human history, I reckon. (And quite a bit of school as well, to be honest.)
You may not know it, but the rest of us do. It's basic high school geology. (And the darkness resulted from the absence of light, as already pointed out.) The fact that you don't know things doesn't constitute anything resembling an argument, surprisingly.
The Sumerians didn't know 11 'orbs' orbiting the sun - nor do we, by the way.
So you missed the bit where the question whether the Bible is actually God's word is debatable?
You seem to be discussing an unwritten NT. Where can we find that exactly?
The NT authors aren't the apostles. Only most of Paul's letters are actually from Paul. (It's interesting, by the way, how you seem to know things about the apostles nobody else does, seeing as these can't be found in the NT.)
The Bible wasn't written in Hebrew to begin with. which kind of disparages the rest of your musings and 'observations'.
No, it really, really doesn't.
No.
That's not even remotely accurate.
No.
Most of human history, I reckon. (And quite a bit of school as well, to be honest.)
You may not know it, but the rest of us do. It's basic high school geology. (And the darkness resulted from the absence of light, as already pointed out.) The fact that you don't know things doesn't constitute anything resembling an argument, surprisingly.
The Sumerians didn't know 11 'orbs' orbiting the sun - nor do we, by the way.
Berzerker
Deity
What is basic HS geology?
Darkness is relative, sunlight is weaker further from the sun and the sun was weaker back then.
They described those 11 orbs in their epic of creation and provided us a picture
How do you know?
Cosmic events signaled his birth and cosmic events foretell his return.
"Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken" - Math 24:29
There will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and on the earth dismay among nations, in perplexity at the roaring of the sea and the waves, 26men fainting from fear and the expectation of the things which are coming upon the world; for the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 27Then they will see THE SON OF MAN COMING IN A CLOUD with power and great glory. - Luke 21:25
I'm not the one who cant make sense of what he said, that would be you. And I already explained what it means.
But it isn't an example
He said VA 243 was probably a constellation... Does that refer to the terrestrial scene below? Who invented this rule that celestial imagery must refer to what is discussed on a seal?
If you are not in fact claiming that a literal reading matches the scientific theories concerning the formation of the Earth and its life, whilst backing this up with one man's "alternative" readings of ancient carvings, then we have a massive failure in communication.
Perhaps I wasn't communicating well either.
Why would Jesus have been in on any deception? He was very specifically mortal, without a scholarly education and he was killed a few short years into his ministry. If you accept the Resurrection narrative, he then ascended to heaven shortly thereafter.
This also assumes that there was a deliberate attempt to deceive anyone. We know that the order and composition of the Bible was debated centuries after the events in the NT (let alone the OT), which when you consider the distance in time and space and the politics therein, suggesting that somehow the exact texts that God allegedly passed onto Moses remained untrammelled at this point would be wildly optimistic, to say the least.
Berzerker
Deity
Fact - I never said a literal reading of Genesis is supported by the science. I dont know why you think otherwise after all the times I've argued against it.
Would you care to explain why you keep mentioning Genesis in these discussions then?
Maybe I should specify that I mean "literal reading" to mean "taking any part of the creation story to indicate accurate (rather than coincidental) knowledge".
Maybe I should specify that I mean "literal reading" to mean "taking any part of the creation story to indicate accurate (rather than coincidental) knowledge".
Berzerker
Deity
Literalists would reject your definition, they take the whole story literally, not just parts here and there. What happens if you decide the accurate knowledge is "coincidental"? Didn't you already do that?
Genesis says a dark water covered world preceded the dry land and life. Yes, I take that literally, albeit I dont take the darkness to mean pitch black. That earlier world had a sky with lights in it, including the sun and moon. But the sun was further away so both were darker.
I interpret the "Light" and the separation from darkness to mean the world was now rotating, presumably closer to the sun. The text doesn't literally say that, but it calls that light day and the darkness night - we have day and night because we're spinning close to a star.
On the 2nd day the firmament is placed amidst the waters to divide them. The asteroid belt is at the snow line, it "literally" divides the water above from the water below. But Genesis doesn't literally call the asteroid belt Heaven.
The waters below became our seas and the dry land was revealed followed by life. We describe that process differently, plate tectonics started building landmasses and life follows soon afterward.
With the appearance of the dry land the next day is devoted to describing the lights in Earth's sky - especially the sun and moon since both were now much brighter. They were assigned new roles...
Literalists and I already irrevocably disagree, so that's hardly an issue. I assume that anything that tallies with modern science in a 2,500 year-old creation story is likely a coincidence, because that's not the point of the story at all. This goes double (so to speak) if you only read certain bits literally: the bits that support your case, naturally.
Berzerker
Deity
So you'll dismiss anything in Genesis supported by the scientific evidence as coincidence and tell us the scientific evidence doesn't support Genesis?
Similar threads
