Or, possibly, in the land where quantum physics wasn't born yet?
In the Beginning...
- Thread starter Berzerker
- Start date
Or, possibly, in the land where quantum physics wasn't born yet?
Berzerker
Deity
The world did have a sky, the dry land didn't until it appeared on the 3rd day. The lights dont care if the world was covered by water or land, but the appearance of the most relevant lights in Genesis do depend on where that world was located. Move this world further from the sun and both the sun and planets appear differently.
Lohrenswald
世界的 bottom ranked physicist
What's the point of being so nit-picking about the six-day creation myth, when it's immideatly followed by another, contradictory myth?
The only people who think everything in the bible is literally true are stupid protestants innit
The only people who think everything in the bible is literally true are stupid protestants innit
Berzerker
Deity
I believe protestants understand the bible can be taken literally, figuratively, metaphorically, etc
Lohrenswald
世界的 bottom ranked physicist
yea but from what I've heard nobody really cared much about the bible before the reformation
There was this minor detail about the Printing Press.
Lohrenswald
世界的 bottom ranked physicist
The clergy didn't care either
Which is why Gutenberg invented the Printing Press.
Which, in turn, is why in Civ V you research the Printing Press as a key human advancement in the Renaissance Era. The stupid Protestants did it.
Why the alien astronauts who have such a firm understanding of astrophysics and gifted our ancestors with all this wonderful knowledge
rolleyes teach us such a remarkably deceitful sophistry? "The world did have a sky, but the dry land didn't because it didn't exist until then." That's bending out backwards so far, you might as well be out winning Chicken Limbo instead.
Lohrenswald
世界的 bottom ranked physicist
I dunno, I guess you might be right
point is that the bible isn't supposed to be central to christianity
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
For someone who claims they do not read them, you found that?
I was aiming for belief, not reality.
It will be resurrected as common knowledge physics.
Are you saying that God used the asteroids?
No one is claiming that air is solid. Water is not a solid either. There are no solid objects in the narrative, until land appeared. You really do not need to use the asteroid belt as an explanation. We get the point that you think a water globe that may have been a frozen solid came from further out than the inner planets, but using the asteroid belt as part of the narrative is really distractive. Throwing huge ice covered boulders, would not hold liquid water apart any more than air would. Throwing huge boulders of ice at the planet, would destroy any form, as in an explosion.
Basketballs do not hold their shape because humans throw rocks at them. They have form because they have air in them. Air does not have to be solid. The ability of the water to retain it's shape is the issue. God is not Thor hammering things into existence. Besides if air is going to be there any ways, why not start with air?
Even if the asteroid belt was the result of a collision, that collision is a separate issue than water being separated. The part about it being firm is the fact there was still a canopy of water above the air. If there was no water above the air, it would be meaningless to claim there was something firm about it. Regardless of the claims made by modern humans, the whole reason why there was firmness was to separate and hold two bodies of water an unknown distance apart, as a globe or canopy around the planet. Now the asteroid belt may be a reason that this canopy was destroyed. I am not sure how a destructive action can keep something with the same form as Genesis presents the story. Most just point out that the Bible is wrong.
A canopy would make sense further out from the sun, but closer the physics involved will not work. One may have well just stated that the earth lost a lot of water when it collided with the asteroid belt. That would be feasible. To say that it went through a collison, and that is what the Bible says created the sky, just does not fit the biblical narrative. The narrative says that God separated the water. It does not say that God allowed some of the water to be lost. That would not be as "news" worthy as stating that the earth once had a water canopy.
Here you commented: "That is what I said". I said the asteroids were meaningless.
God called the formless water: earth. That was the Planet. This does not contradict the point that God called dry land earth. Why is dry land mentioned? Dry land is also earth, as in soil. Instead of calling dry land dry land, or saying that the earth came out of the water and God named it "dry land", the dry land was named. We still call dry land earth and the planet earth. We are not contradicting ourselves, we just need to provide a context with the word earth. The water planet was one context. The dry land of the continents is the other context. Names have always been important. They used to be used to describe something of importance. They may have been used to lay claim to something. They had more importance then, than they do now. Adam was told to name the animals. It was more likely a right of passage or the ability to take control over what was named. It may be a coincidence, but sometimes in naming people they end up having a name that describes their personality traits. Normally though names were giving after the fact of the description experienced.
The printing press was part of it, but the reformation was not about people's apathy. The church did not want any one questioning their authority. They claimed only the trained Priest sanctioned by the church could proclaim the words found in the Bible. Obviously Private interpretation can be questioned. Not to mention those who claim the Bible is wrong to begin with.
BINGO! What is then? I think the point most every contributor to the Bible would point out is that GOD is the central theme of Christianity. The second point would be that the Bible is the WORD of God on earth. But even the Word points to GOD as the central figure of all life.
That is probably not what you meant, though.
Berzerker
Deity
Why the alien astronauts who have such a firm understanding of astrophysics and gifted our ancestors with all this wonderful knowledge
I dont know why you're using quotes around something I didn't say. And you complain about deceitful sophistry?
The primordial world covered by water in Gen 1:2 had a sky but its described as being in darkness. That changed with God's "Let there be light", now that primordial world covered by water had night and day.
On the 3rd day the dry land called Earth appears from under the water and on the 4th day Earth's sky is described - at this point the firmament called Heaven becomes synonymous with Earth's sky. Genesis credits God with the creation of the dry land called Earth, not the primordial world covered by water in Gen 1:2. So God didn't create that primordial world or it's sky, God created the dry land and it's sky.
Berzerker said:
Should one actually comment on this or just let it speak for itself...
Physics doesn't care much about common knowledge. Physicists might, though.
Not to worry, it wasn't.
The physics of a canopy?
Not really.
Good thing then that the Bible does not say that at all.
I beg to differ.
On to history:
Actually, there already was a reform movement within the church. As anyone remotely familiar with the Reformation would know. Eventually the church even came up with a Counterreformation of its own.
And that's all we have time for today.
Berzerker
Deity
No, the asteroids were the result of collisions - they are the hammered out bracelet.
The firmament called Heaven is solid
It's solid, it was beaten or hammered out, and it divides the waters (and planets).
Heaven was placed amidst the waters... The asteroid belt doesn't hold water apart, it merely divides or separates the waters.
Air is not firm, so what is firm?
Earth is the dry land... Tehom (the name of that primordial water covered world in Gen 1:2) lost water during the collisions but the asteroids weren't the impactors, they're the debris trails from the collisions.
The water was one body (Tehom) before creation. After the collisions the water was separated by the firmament called Heaven and the water below the Heaven became our Seas. The water above was lost...
The water canopy is a different theory based in part on a passage describing the deluge. The fountains of the deep followed by a downpour, the latter supposedly came from this canopy.
You said the asteroids dont prevent sunlight from reaching the outer planets. That is what I said.
God called the formless Earth of Gen 1:2 dry land when it was revealed on the 3rd day.
God didn't create the planet, God revealed the dry land called Earth
Because in the beginning God created Heaven and Earth
Genesis doesn't call the planet Earth, just the dry land. Thats important, God didn't create the water covered world of Gen 1:2...
Berzerker
Deity
"The Earth was without form because land submerged by water is not dry"
Earth is the name God gave the dry land when it appeared from under the water on the 3rd day. Why did we have to wait until the 3rd day for the Earth to have form? Because submerged land isn't dry.
Lexicus
Deity
Berzerker said:
A meaningless truism. Everything in the universe larger than a cosmic dust mote is the result of collisions.
Berzerker
Deity
the debate is about what kind of collisions produced the asteroids... was it just the accretion of small objects into much larger asteroids that were prevented from forming a planet by Jupiter's gravity or were the asteroids the debris trails from large collisions between planets and their moons.
Tim asked if God used the asteroids and I said no, they were the result of the collisions that produced dry land and life on this planet
Tim asked if God used the asteroids and I said no, they were the result of the collisions that produced dry land and life on this planet
Lohrenswald
世界的 bottom ranked physicist
As far as I know the thing is that the bible was written by fallible humans, so it's actually not the word of god
I was gonna say the central thing in christianity is Jesus, but god works too.
Anyway, it's pointless to try and say theat heavens and the earth means space and matter or whatever. The authors didn't know about any of that, so there's no allusion there
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
Thanks, that makes more sense. I am not sure how God created Heaven though, as that seems to be done by the Asteroids. I am not sure that you can say that God created Heaven and Earth either. God did not use the Asteroids, so God creating the Asteroids would not make sense. God causing the land to come out of the Seas, is not creation. It may be manipulation, but pulling out what was already accreting, is not an act of creation.
I am curious why you think the authors needed to know about everything, that all of humanity would ever know? That would seem like an unreasonable request to make of them. You may not accept God, but there are humans that do. That does not prove there is a GOD, but by what are you going to use to determine who is right and who is wrong? It falls under the improvable, so that means no one can say, "I know there is not a GOD". One cannot prove non-existence. If something does not exist, then it does not exist. That is the only proof. A human could have the knowledge and experience, and make the claim, "There is a GOD", but that is not going to help those who have no knowledge or experience of GOD. Then there are those who believe there is a GOD, but they have no knowledge or experience, they just trust those who do know.
The claim is that the Bible is God's Word given to humans and they wrote it down. It tells about private things that perhaps the humans themselves would not openly talk about, but someone did and wrote them down. I don't see the need to make the book or writings sacred, but that is the nature of human's and their need to have a tangible form of God, they can attach their belief to. Those who know GOD, do not need a tangible relic on the earth, because they have experienced GOD. But the WORD has always been used to create, what is physical in the universe. The Bible is the physical presence of God even though it is not a religious relic with any special powers in and of the physical aspect. The point of the Bible is actually reading and accepting what is read. Before we jump to the conclusion that this is all internal mumble jumble, that is self re-enforcing belief system, and which sacred text is right and which is wrong, we have to go back to what a person knows and what they do not know. Just believing is not important. Belief can self re-enforce, but it can also lie. Someone can also lie about what they know, but knowledge is the term that humans use to claim they do know something, and if they are truthful internally, they do not have to re-enforce such knowledge, because it is not themselves, but something outside of themselves.
Knowledge is the sticking point, because some humans hold that one cannot know anything outside of the human experience. That is another negative that cannot be proven, because it proves itself, so that argument cannot even be considered. People may accept that fact, and that is not wrong. It may be foolish, but not wrong. It is probably even foolish to convince one otherwise.
So we have some who claim to know something outside of the human experience which is not part of the whole human experience, and only some humans have the knowledge but others do not. That leads to determinism, and lack of free will. Or does it? No one is claiming that other humans cannot know. Their free will is the ability to not know. It does not stop them from knowing, but it prevents them from wanting too. Their free will is greater than their ability to choose, but does not totally eradicate it. Neither does it mean that there is determinism, because you have a majority who do not know, but trust the one's who do. That gives free will to them also as they can freely choose between the two. The ones who have the knowledge can also chose not to accept it, and they have the ability to reject it, because even the Devil is afforded the opportunity to change it's mind. To human knowledge that is the being who rejected God first.
One can argue that this can be used for every ideology and that is true. That is why there is the difference and the confusion in regards to the different religions. There is no way to prove which one is true and which one is not. It is not even wrong to claim that one is the only way. That is also part of the ability of free will.
Unless one actually knows that GOD created the universe, then it is just a belief to them, and no one can change another person's belief system. Only that person has the ability to do that. And belief systems are self enforcing and that is why humans think that there is no free will. It is free will itself that makes that possible. One is free to do anything to hold onto one's belief system, even to the point of not being able to make a choice to change it. And yes it is possible that what I just said was only a belief system, but what is the point? To prove I am wrong? It cannot, because no one else knows what another human knows, unless they tell them. You cannot prove that I am wrong, you can only accept that I am right. The problem with some knowledge in the whole of human experience is because there are some people who are afraid to speak what they know, or the intentional withholding of knowledge to control the rest of humanity. One can only reject or accept what another human tells them. Why is it binary? Because we only live in one reality. It is either life or death. If we were able to live in other realities and dimensions, then we would have more choices, or perhaps no choice at all. Why is it that not every one knows God? The universe is the knowledge of God, if one accepts that there is a God. Knowledge comes from accepting. Accepting comes from hearing. Hearing comes from someone who knows, or reading and accepting the Word of God.
If I'd meant to quote you directly, I would have done. However, feel free to point out the non-existence difference between:
A) The world did have a sky, the dry land didn't until it appeared on the 3rd day.
B) The world did have a sky, but the dry land didn't because it didn't exist until then.
Similar threads
