In the Beginning...

[El_Machinae]

Evidence that the Biblical account is accurate is not evidence that God is real. One cannot learn any real information about the Creator from the creation, and we also do not know if it was the Creator that told the prophets about the event.

We don't need to freeze; just cure aging before you need the cure!

 

[tetley]

If backward herdsmen get the secrets of the universe right, with no knowledge of subatomic particles, differential calculus, the earth is round, Newton's laws, nothing--then the only possible conclusion is that God told it to them.

 

[Lexicus]

Yeah, pure coincidence is much likelier than that.

 

[El_Machinae]

If backward herdsmen get the secrets of the universe right, with no knowledge of subatomic particles, differential calculus, the earth is round, Newton's laws, nothing--then the only possible conclusion is that God told it to them.

That's not the only possible conclusion by any stretch. All you need for them to be told advanced secrets is contact with an entities or entities vastly more advanced than they are. There's no reason why it could only be God that tells them things that we will know naturally in 3000 years.

Even Christian cosmology is replete with entities that not only could plausibly know the underlying laws of the Universe and its History, but also is capable of communicating this knowledge to people.

 

[Lexicus]

I'd say pure coincidence is likelier than aliens too. Though that's more of a gut feeling than a conclusion based on evidence and could well be false based on information I don't know.

 

[Arakhor]

You would then also get into the issue about how much correlation is proof of prior knowledge and how much is simply cherry-picking to 'prove' an erroneous position. After all, using Graham Hancock's methods of aligning certain ancient monuments with the night sky in various places at one singular time (10,500 BC in his case), BBC's Horizon series managed to find that various landmarks in Manhattan "matched up" with the constellation of Leo.

 

[Leoreth]

So God was drunk when the universe was created? Or was God drunk, when God gave Moses the details?

Are we sure Earth was actually subsumed in a water planet when God came along? I think I saw some booze on Sumerian tablets once

 

[timtofly]

No, I am saying it is nonsensical to adopt a creationist/literalist stance on the Bible and then start trying to come up with naturalistic explanations for why the Bible is literally correct. It makes even less sense to start asserting that certain elements simply didn't happen as described, whilst still maintaining a seemingly literalist viewpoint.

I have done none of the above. I am attempting to understand the text with any new knowledge we may have. If the sciences change in the next few years, then I will have to understand the text all over again.

Seeing as how most of history humans had no clue what Genesis was describing, I am pretty sure that it is easy to assume anything, and then declare it dogma. If you think their speculations are correct, would it not be you and them who are wrong, and not the text?

I do not even have the right to claim that we have finally figured out what happened.

Please quote literal chapter and verse as to where the water canopy around the Earth is mentioned in the Bible. Moreover, a lie is a deliberate untruth, saying something that you know to be wrong. It does not simply mean, "something with which I disagree".

I never claimed to be a canopyist. I have even avoided mentioning the canopy theory. nor does the Bible call it that. The Bible claims that God separated the waters from the waters. Later it said the windows in the sky were opened, and the Earth was Flooded. The lie is that there was no water above the atmosphere, when clearly the text says that God separated the waters. Calling it a canopy was speculation of known science of that time. Is the point there was a canopy that is nonsensical, or that God separated the waters?

It could be, but that's patently ridiculous. Why even make such a suggestion?

There have been plenty of speculations in this thread. One of which claims the earth may have been extra-solar. ie existing before everything else in the text, even God. Why not place it in another system a couple of times just for good measure?

Indeed. Too many T's up in here

It is called properly dividing the text. An issue with most posters here. Humans are attributed for quoting what God quoted.

As practicing scientists, the way to put Genesis to the test is clear. I think it's to safe to say in 3,000 years we will know just a little more about space and cosmology than we do now. So to test it, we just need to freeze one member of this forum for 3,000 years. And if the Biblical account seems to better match what we know at that time, then we know God is real, and we should adopt the Bible as the gold standard for which we pursue all future space research. And if cutting-edge science at the time debunks the Bible, we can blow it off.

Now, to just find that one person to freeze for 3,000 years. I might have my opinions, but I'm not sayin'.

Why wait 3000 years? Isn't 1000 years just as good? We have already seen what human's have claimed it meant, and that ended up not making sense. The more knowledge we gain, the more it seems to make sense.

Evidence that the Biblical account is accurate is not evidence that God is real. One cannot learn any real information about the Creator from the creation, and we also do not know if it was the Creator that told the prophets about the event.

We don't need to freeze; just cure aging before you need the cure!

If God is real, the only evidence that some "need" is a face to face encounter, or all of creation. The only way to learn about the creator is through creation, if God does not reveal face to face.

Yeah, pure coincidence is much likelier than that.

Of course it is. Even if a being imagined the whole thing, with or without coincidences built into the design, it would still seem coincidental.

 

[Leoreth]

So wait. Apparently for most of history no human understands what Genesis (and I assume by extension, many other parts of the bible) actually means.

And according to this thread it is our job to wait for "the science" to make new discoveries so we can compare them to the bible to find out if it matches those discoveries.

And once the science is done discovering things we will have our answer to whether the bible is a reliable account of our prehistory and cosmology.

And then what?

I'm serious, in this approach to the bible, where does that leave its revelatory function? In other words, what is the point of the bible? Why care at all?

 

[Lexicus]

It is called properly dividing the text. An issue with most posters here. Humans are attributed for quoting what God quoted.

Didn't you claim you weren't religious when we first entered into an exchange with each other? Sorry, but Genesis was written by humans, not dictated by Jehovah, an imaginary character.

 

[Arakhor]

I never claimed to be a canopyist. I have even avoided mentioning the canopy theory. nor does the Bible call it that. The Bible claims that God separated the waters from the waters. Later it said the windows in the sky were opened, and the Earth was Flooded. The lie is that there was no water above the atmosphere, when clearly the text says that God separated the waters. Calling it a canopy was speculation of known science of that time. Is the point there was a canopy that is nonsensical, or that God separated the waters?

God is conventionally described as omnipotent, so it's safe to assume that he could have created the world exactly as Genesis recounts. It's also worth noting that anyone can temporarily "separate the waters" by pulling something large out of a bowl of water - it certainly wouldn't create a halo of water around the Earth.

 

[timtofly]

So wait. Apparently for most of history no human understands what Genesis (and I assume by extension, many other parts of the bible) actually means.

That tends to happen even with direct revelation. That is why any revelation is suspect. Humans are skeptics by default. We were skeptical about a certain fruit, and have been locked into the trait ever since.

And according to this thread it is our job to wait for "the science" to make new discoveries so we can compare them to the bible to find out if it matches those discoveries.

I am not sure what can be taken from this thread. I am not sure what waiting will do. I suppose the Bible is taken by quite a few to be the measure to go by. If it is the only means, then it would seem that humans at any other time are unable to know God. I think that every human is capable of knowing God, if they so choose, but I have heard that some have tried, and decided it was impossible.

And once the science is done discovering things we will have our answer to whether the bible is a reliable account of our prehistory and cosmology.

I doubt it.

And then what?

I'm serious, in this approach to the bible, where does that leave its revelatory function? In other words, what is the point of the bible? Why care at all?

On one hand you have unchangeable dogma. On the other hand, you have God picking and choosing with whom or what a revelation entails. I am suspect of anything that claims there is a new revelation that NEEDS to correct any other one. According to those who met God, God cares. The Bible is what humans claimed happened when they had interaction with God. Those who know God, should care, because to most, God does seem unapproachable. But even meeting God, and having God approachable does not guarantee that as a human we will choose to approach God.

The common theme that most religions have pointed out is that God while creating the whole universe, and even allowing humans to have free choices, either all of creation has to conform to God, or it is an impossibility. Some took that to be some divine or spiritual control of the universe. That is the nature and definition of God. God seems to some as a source of the purest energy, and the approach does seem to be hinged on some form of ethics, as part of human's being lost to the full aspect of the universe. This disconnect does seem to be in the mind/brain.

It is not that God seemed to fail at keeping humans away from a religious assumption on things. God asked nothing of Adam. God did not care what was brought as an offering, but only that the person bringing did as they were told. The Law was not a religion, and stressed the fact to not make it a religion. Jesus did not come to start a religion or even an earthly kingdom, but humans did so in the name of Christ.

Didn't you claim you weren't religious when we first entered into an exchange with each other? Sorry, but Genesis was written by humans, not dictated by Jehovah, an imaginary character.

What is your definition of religious?

I am not religious. God is a scientist. What does science have to do with religion?

God told the Hebrews to avoid making God into a religion, but the remaining tribe Judea who was left right before the Babylonian captivity started the religion called Judaism. That was years after the encounter with Moses.

I am not claiming that God is an alien or ET either that some "cult" was created around. Humans were told that God created the universe, and that can be seen in various religions going back to the beginning of human record keeping. I am not sure whether it can be claimed religions sprang up first, and proclaimed truths, or if human's forgot truth, and religions sprang up as an attempt to regain lost knowledge. The unknown has been sought after by mystics, spiritualist, and even science, but I don't think any group has any right to claim the unknown as their invented domain.

God is conventionally described as omnipotent, so it's safe to assume that he could have created the world exactly as Genesis recounts. It's also worth noting that anyone can temporarily "separate the waters" by pulling something large out of a bowl of water - it certainly wouldn't create a halo of water around the Earth.

I already pointed out that the Hebrews thought Genesis was the "blue print" for creation. Now who is claiming there are multiple Gods.

The earth was never a bowl of water. You are confusing me with Berzerker. I guess we could speculate was the water above spinning, or just the earth and water below?

 

[Arakhor]

I imagine that either the water above the firmament was their explanation for rain or that they believed that the waters surrounded the entire world, as the panthalassic Oceanus was believed to do by the Greeks.

 

[timtofly]

I imagine that either the water above the firmament was their explanation for rain or that they believed that the waters surrounded the entire world, as the panthalassic Oceanus was believed to do by the Greeks.

It states that there was no rain, and that dew came up from the ground, I speculate there were no weather systems at all on earth, until the Flood. They did not seem to know what a rainbow was until then.

Even though the lights in the sky were to be for signs and season, neither were necessary until after the Flood. If they were for signs, did that mean that God instituted astrology, or was that added later as an excuse to use astrology?

Either way the whole point of separation was to "fix" that water into one place. Otherwise there was no need to mention it all, except for the coming flood.

God declared it as punishment, but when? Was it declared as an act even before the land was formed, or even before motion was given to the bodies in the solar system? The physicist say that water above would cause too much friction, but on the other hand it would explain another form of protection against deadly solar rays that seem to be wrong for life on earth.

 

[Berzerker]

You can find patterns everywhere, if you are selective about the source data you look at and only pick out the numbers that support your pre-determined conclusion and ignore everything else.

It does, though!

There is 0 evidence that those people could build telescopes capable of seeing planets not visible with the naked eye. That technology just did not seem to exist at the time, so there is no way for those people to have been able to see those planets.

There were 5 visible planets but they knew about more. If they knew only about 5 planets why doesn't the number 5 play a bigger role in cosmology? I'm sure people have seen Uranus enough to make 6 visible planets integral to myth. Maybe...

But according to ancient peoples all over the world (the pattern) larger numbers represent their cosmological beliefs about the heavens. The numbers 9, 12 and 13 are most common. Both the Inca and Toltec believed in 13 levels of Heaven but their creator occupied 2 levels. The Inca depicted this creator as an ellipse joining (or separating) 9 "stars" with the sun and moon on either side. There was a duality about their creator. The Toltec also believed in the 9 lords of the night.

Maybe you mis-read what I wrote. I wrote that you were cherrypicking through examples to find the patterns you want - the ones that support your hypothesis.

I'd have to be cherry picking to find examples that dont support my argument. Your accusation means I'm ignoring examples contrary to my argument, where are they? If they exist I haven't seen them. And if there are a few, would you be cherry picking examples to support your rebuttal? Its a meaningless criticism and I'm not the one who is guilty of ignoring evidence that doesn't support my "pre-determined conclusion".

The people who are saying "The ancient {whoever} only saw certain planets" are not doing that.

They're arguing ancient peoples didn't know about the outer planets. They are ignoring all the evidence that doesn't support their conclusion.

They aren't sifting through data to find patterns to support their conclusion.

They dont have any data to support their conclusion.

They looked at the evidence and the only viable conclusion they could come to was the one they came to. There was no pattern searching.

Ignoring the pattern is cherry picking... What evidence have they looked at? Their pre-determined conclusion was people couldn't see the outer planets therefore any evidence they knew about them should be ignored.

 

[Berzerker]

Really now? What sort of daft writer refers to the Earth spinning near the Sun before he even mentions that it exists?

It wasn't the Earth spinning, it was the world covered by water. The dry land called Earth didn't appear until the 3rd day, thats why the sky above the dry land is described on the 4th day.

All those people who are posting that the sun was there on day 1, and then "re-appearing" on day 4.

How did the world have day and night before the 4th day? What changed about the sky in Gen 1:2 and the 4th day? The sky was dark in Gen 1:2... The world was further from the sun, the two great lights were not so great.

But that changed, by the 4th day the dry land had appeared and the two not so great lights were much brighter, their greatness could not be denied. They would rule over the Earth's new sky.

All those posters who claim the un-formed earth which was hidden in a formed water planet created at the asteroid belt, waiting at the edge of the solar system which was not there, because God had not arrived yet. When God arrived and asked why it was waiting there, God decided to create a solar system for it to have a home.

God didn't create the solar system and the dry land called Earth was hidden by the deep

 

[Agent327]

On with our list of illogicalities:

How did the world have day and night before the 4th day? What changed about the sky in Gen 1:2 and the 4th day? The sky was dark in Gen 1:2... The world was further from the sun, the two great lights were not so great.

...which is what you make up, and Genesis doesn't say. also, we know this isn't true. And yet, you keep repeating it. Which US politician does this remind us of...

God didn't create the solar system and the dry land called Earth was hidden by the deep

Dito. Which US politician does this remind us of...

There were 5 visible planets but they knew about more.

No. They didn't.

There were 5 visible planets but they knew about more. If they knew only about 5 planets why doesn't the number 5 play a bigger role in cosmology?

A matter of numerology, I should think. Why is 3 more important in mythical numerology than 2?

But according to ancient peoples all over the world (the pattern) larger numbers represent their cosmological beliefs about the heavens.

No. It doesn't. Nor is this "according to ancient peoples all over the world".

I'd have to be cherry picking to find examples that dont support my argument.

That's a good one, considering you are cherry picking to support your argument:

They're arguing ancient peoples didn't know about the outer planets. They are ignoring all the evidence that doesn't support their conclusion.

No, 'they' are not. You are. You see, no such 'evidence' exists. Which is entirely logical: not to have evidence of things one doesn't know about.

They dont have any data to support their conclusion.

We've entered the realm of the bizarre now...

Ignoring the pattern is cherry picking... What evidence have they looked at? Their pre-determined conclusion was people couldn't see the outer planets therefore any evidence they knew about them should be ignored.

Oh yes, scientists and scholars have ignored evidence they should have been seeing. But lucky for us, Berzerker has revealed all!

There is a clear pattern here. (Funny that you should mention that.) It's the pattern of the conspirational theorist.

It states that there was no rain, and that dew came up from the ground, I speculate there were no weather systems at all on earth, until the Flood. They did not seem to know what a rainbow was until then.

I see...

Even though the lights in the sky were to be for signs and season, neither were necessary until after the Flood. If they were for signs, did that mean that God instituted astrology, or was that added later as an excuse to use astrology?

What?

Either way the whole point of separation was to "fix" that water into one place. Otherwise there was no need to mention it all, except for the coming flood.

Yes, Except, water isn't fixed in any place. But otherwise this makes perfect sense.

God declared it as punishment, but when? Was it declared as an act even before the land was formed, or even before motion was given to the bodies in the solar system?

Hm, yes. Well, those bodies would already be in motion. Even the sun is in motion - without any divine intervention at all. Odd, huh?

The physicist say that water above would cause too much friction, but on the other hand it would explain another form of protection against deadly solar rays that seem to be wrong for life on earth.

Good argument - except for the fact that the physicist doesn't say that at all - but otherwise not a bad argument.

Well, apart from the fact that none of the statements are actually logical, that is. But otherwise, great arguments.

 

[Leoreth]

I am not sure what can be taken from this thread.

A major part of the discussion here seems to be about whether the content of the bible is vindicated by The Science. Admittedly more by Berzerker than by you.

My question is what the point of this is.

If we need to get knowledge some other way so we can compare if the bible is correct (or even to understand it in the first place), then the knowledge in the bible is worthless. Because we have already found out those things the other way.

I mean it's nice to know that the bible was right after all, but that would basically mean the bible was a Shaggy Dog story if there ever was one.

God is a scientist.

So god is not omniscient?

 

[Arakhor]

There were 5 visible planets but they knew about more. If they knew only about 5 planets why doesn't the number 5 play a bigger role in cosmology? I'm sure people have seen Uranus enough to make 6 visible planets integral to myth. Maybe..

Why are you deliberately ignoring that the Sun and the Moon were counted as planets by Ptolemy and his successors, making seven planets? Seven, of course, doesn't appear anywhere in our modern calendar.

 

[timtofly]

On with our list of illogicalities:

Is it arrogant to be the only logical poster?

A major part of the discussion here seems to be about whether the content of the bible is vindicated by The Science. Admittedly more by Berzerker than by you.

My question is what the point of this is.

If we need to get knowledge some other way so we can compare if the bible is correct (or even to understand it in the first place), then the knowledge in the bible is worthless. Because we have already found out those things the other way.

I mean it's nice to know that the bible was right after all, but that would basically mean the bible was a Shaggy Dog story if there ever was one.

I can only speak for myself, but being able to see multiple sides of the human perspective is an educational and surprisingly informational endeavor. I am not sure, about anyone posting whom claims to have all the answers, and my post may come across that way, but it is not done intentionally. I am constantly being reminded, that my conversations tend to degrade into argument despite my best effort to avoid that happening.

I also did not expect this thread to be derailed, as an apologetic on Genesis. There is little in Genesis that can be compared to the Enuma Elish. The only point I can see, is the earth may have had more water, if it formed further out. If it hit a couple of other forming planets, it could have lost some water, and gained some heavier elements and mass to gain continents, and even a moon. I guess only Berzerker knows if it was an attempt when comparing them, to point out any scientific relevance.

Why would knowledge be worthless? It may no longer be relevant, but it would never have been knowledge if it had no purpose. If we have humans at the time making up their version of creation, why would God not tell the Hebrews what happened? Technically, they would not have to make one up, even if they did not understand any of it.

So god is not omniscient?

I get the point, but one may be a bored scientist, and not necessarily an oxymoron. Even if one knows everything, would it not have to be carried out to fulfill the knowledge known? There are some who claim it is all an allusion and there is no physical reality at all. Why introduce an idea we call science if there is no physical reality? Why is there an unknown "spiritual" knowledge if there is only physical reality?