In the Beginning...

[Berzerker]

You lost me. What was there first, the water or the light?

water preceded day (light)

 

[Perfection]

Ultimately from whatever caused existence... But they were already in existence before the 4th day, they had to wait for the dry land called Earth to appear before they could serve a role in it's sky.

And that whatever also caused God's existence?

 

[Berzerker]

Yes, according to Sitchin's theory the "God" in Genesis is another planet that entered our solar system ~4bya and had a violent encounter with a planet covered by water at the snow line (asteroid belt). A large chunk of that world (tehom) ended up here along with a moon displaying evidence of the celestial cataclysm.

 

[timtofly]

The (visible) stars were made to serve for signs etc on the 4th day, they cannot be the universe.
And that they appear on the 4th day matters to the story, the dry land called Earth didn't show up until the 3rd day. The universe is not being described, just our sky. Did the psalmist say God created the water?

The planets and sun are not "literally" in the sky either. What is being described has to be taken into context of what the Hebrews at that time did understand. But Genesis does not literally say that the earth is the center of the universe and heaven is just the firmament containing all the stars that could be observed. The whole argument that a literal reading of Genesis led to so many misconceptions is just plain wrong. The story is from a perspective where it seems the rest of the universe, places the earth at the center of it all. The Psalmist referred to it as an expanse. Even today looking out at the sky there does not seem to be a boundary of where that expanse ends. The ancients were not misleading people in their explanation, because even explaining it today could just as well be misleading.

Why would any one make it a point that water was or was not created? Obviously you do to make a point that God did not do it, but you have no idea if God did it in a previous universe or not. The psalmist does not claim what or was not created, they just point out that everything points to what God did and still does.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tehom

The first verse tells us God created the firmament and dry land. They dont appear in the story until the 2nd and 3rd days. They were preceded by tehom, the dark, water covered world in Gen 1:2...

If the 1st verse refers to "heavens" rather than the singular "Heaven" that was placed amidst the waters, they - the heavens - followed both the firmament called Heaven and dry land called Earth.

If you are going to quote Gnostics, then the counter would be John who was accused of being gnostic. John claimed that not one thing that happens, happens without God and that God was the beginning of all things.

Technically the account reads as an unfolding event that does not happen instantly. Which follows that God did not literally create anything, but was only attributed the point of overseeing what was happening. Saying that God did not create anything, and then claim God did create while it was happening does not follow. One does not create what is already in the process of happening. Saying that God "sent" the Flood could be a reason attributed to the event, but God already knew it would happen, God just did not refute the fact that it happened as a form of punishment. Further since time is not relative to God, setting it up to happen in the future, technically would be the same thing, because God knew humans would be evil and set it up thousands of years before the event. When it comes to a being where time really does not matter attempting to take a literal fixed point in time and make a claim, the claim has no literal basis.

Ultimately from whatever caused existence... But they were already in existence before the 4th day, they had to wait for the dry land called Earth to appear before they could serve a role in it's sky.

Saying that God created them on day four is not literal. They appeared on that day, but creation had already happened and was happening at the same time.

I dont think we're using the same definition of God, mine can be verified or falsified. Either a collision at the asteroid belt resulted in plate tectonics and life or it didn't and our science will figure it out. We're already doing that, our water came from the asteroid belt and the world formed in the presence of water. That tells me the world didn't form here, it formed out there.

Whether or not God was present or not, for such a being, being present (or not) does not seem to make a difference.

@ El Mac - Genesis says our water was one (tehom) and it was divided by the firmament. The water below the snow line (asteroid belt) became our seas, the water above had a different fate. It survives to this day as ice coating various objects or as a liquid in bodies of water on asteroids and moons or trapped within rocks, like the debris left behind by the collision that visits us in the form of meteorites.

The Genesis account does not say this, because God states that at the time of the Flood the water that was separated was involved from the sky above, from the ocean, and from the water under the land (the deep that the land came out of). There was water in some form around the earth, there was the ocean(s), and then there was water under the crust. Any form of water that is found any where else in the solar system was part of the gas that formed water during the transition from a nebulae to a solar system.


When it comes to the earth's crust (mantle) was there ever a time when it was fixed? If the impact that formed the moon actually changed the crust from being fixed to where it now has the ability to move in huge chunks and even be "re-cycled", then humans had to be around on the very first continent. They went through the event of when the moon formed. When that happened they lost an identity, and knowledge that they kept thinking the stars would bring back to them, but never did.

Yes, according to Sitchin's theory the "God" in Genesis is another planet that entered our solar system ~4bya and had a violent encounter with a planet covered by water at the snow line (asteroid belt). A large chunk of that world (tehom) ended up here along with a moon displaying evidence of the celestial cataclysm.

If this is what Sitchin believes, then he accepts evolution and an elaborate selection process that involves planetary bodies. It is still evolution.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I have a theory that on June the 7th, 2016, someone made a bet with Berzerker along the lines of "I bet you can't start a thread about weird biblical ancient alien conspiracy theories and make it run for 100 pages". That person is probably starting to get nervous.

 

[timtofly]

Are you hedging your theory?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Nope I'm all in.

 

[El_Machinae]

water preceded day (light)

So, it wasn't 'water', as in an ocean. It was ice?

 

[Berzerker]

lol I was hoping to use the thread for future news from the scientific world rather than start a new one

 

[Berzerker]

So, it wasn't 'water', as in an ocean. It was ice?

It was water, the world was covered by it before the dry land and life appeared - one vast ocean.

The rest of our water is at and beyond the asteroid belt, some of it in the form of ice. Well, Mars was undoubtedly plastered with water bearing rocks.

I linked an article way back in the thread that suggested our water came from the asteroid belt and that this world formed in the presence of water.

If thats true the Earth formed between Jupiter and Mars at the snow line and those asteroids are remnants of that primordial world and whatever collided with it.

 

[timtofly]

I was recently reading a website, and they thought the asteroid belt contained enough material for 2 to 3 earth size planets.

I still think it is a huge leap in logic that a planet that is just liquid water is the remnant of 3 to 4 planets colliding.

For one thing to move there has to be a moment of force to produce such a movement.

That there is "debris" seems to indicate an impact, but if something from further out to cause an impact could still have been this liquid planet, but there would not have to be an impact at that orbit at all.

The description is a "ball" of water resulted from 3 more "balls" with or without water colliding into each other.

Or a few "balls" of ice collided with a few solid "balls", and the result was rock debris with some ice, and a ball of water moving closer to the sun.


Now Sitchin pointed out that a planet came in with an opposing trajectory than the rest of the planets. This was the liquid covered earth. It crashed into a "planet" that was in the current earth orbit, and this is what formed the moon. It was still water but now it had part of the planet within and a moon as a satellite. That is somewhat more plausible than even using the asteroid belt just to reconcile it with the Genesis account. The "moon creating" action would have split the water in half, ie separate the water from the water. Eventually the remaining section of the moon would have "surfaced" and created a continent.

Just coming from further out that would allow for more H2O in any form to be more concentrated in a coalescing planet form, and there would be no need to explain the asteroid belt at all. That was a totally separate event. For all we know that could have been the alleged army that was to materialize that never did. If it was involved it was never the start of the earth, but any other damage this water ball did on the way in. Genesis only mentions one water splitting event so you are going to have to decide which one is pertinent. If the asteroid belt event was the first, then the moon event will have to be the Flood. That is if you absolutely have to reconcile it to Genesis.

If Genesis has nothing to do with it, then it could have been any formation event in the last 4 billion years.

 

[Agent327]

I was recently reading a website, and they thought the asteroid belt contained enough material for 2 to 3 earth size planets.

I still think it is a huge leap in logic that a planet that is just liquid water is the remnant of 3 to 4 planets colliding.

Actually, it's already a huge leap from the first sentence to the second. The asteroid belt contained (?) enough material for 2 to 3 earth size planets. And yet, it only contains asteroid size objects.

Now Sitchin pointed out that a planet came in with an opposing trajectory than the rest of the planets. This was the liquid covered earth. It crashed into a "planet" that was in the current earth orbit, and this is what formed the moon. It was still water but now it had part of the planet within and a moon as a satellite. That is somewhat more plausible than even using the asteroid belt just to reconcile it with the Genesis account.

I don't think 'Sitchin pointed out' is even remotely correct. And I'm not sure why anything needs to be reconciled with Genesis?

The "moon creating" action would have split the water in half, ie separate the water from the water. Eventually the remaining section of the moon would have "surfaced" and created a continent.

This is just sheer nonsense.

It was water, the world was covered by it before the dry land and life appeared - one vast ocean.

The rest of our water is at and beyond the asteroid belt, some of it in the form of ice. Well, Mars was undoubtedly plastered with water bearing rocks.

I linked an article way back in the thread that suggested our water came from the asteroid belt and that this world formed in the presence of water.

If thats true the Earth formed between Jupiter and Mars at the snow line and those asteroids are remnants of that primordial world and whatever collided with it.

The latter - and note the if at the beginning - doesn't even remotely follow.

 

[El_Machinae]

It was water, the world was covered by it before the dry land and life appeared - one vast ocean.

The rest of our water is at and beyond the asteroid belt, some of it in the form of ice. Well, Mars was undoubtedly plastered with water bearing rocks.

I linked an article way back in the thread that suggested our water came from the asteroid belt and that this world formed in the presence of water.

If thats true the Earth formed between Jupiter and Mars at the snow line and those asteroids are remnants of that primordial world and whatever collided with it.

... but there was already light by the time there was liquid water.

 

[timtofly]

The asteroid belt contained (?) enough material for 2 to 3 earth size planets. And yet, it only contains asteroid size objects.

Maybe it still contains the same material it used to, or even more or less?

This is just sheer nonsense.

The other option is the moon came out of no where and never hit the earth at all.

... but there was already light by the time there was liquid water.

Liquid water needs heat not light. At the edges there was plenty of oxygen, and hydrogen was already there. It was water before it was ice, if what was forming was water. Before the nebulae collapsed it was "interstellar dust" (whatever that is) and hydrogen. When it collapsed the hydrogen rapidly turned into oxygen, but there was still plenty of heat from the collapse. What we cannot determine is why a huge ball of water/ice from the edge took time to get to current earth orbit. There may have been several forming and maybe they were crashing into each other out there, like raindrops at the top of a window, that form a larger one, by the time they reach the bottom. Why would scientist even think about such things, when they are still stuck with the point the earth was the "center" at one time. Not because it was, but because humans thought that for such a long time, and then finally accepted that the earth revolved around the sun, but the earth never moved in human thought. The sun moved, because it has always been moving.

The earth started out at the edge and ended up where it is now. That would be the only logical explanation, because most H2O forming closer to the central star, would have eventually been burned or absorbed into the newly forming sun. By the time the solar disk cooled it did leave a few frozen ice balls still out at the edge, and even some comets that have a remarkably different orbit than earth did. That may be circular reasoning that the earth had to form that way, and the earth is proof that something could form that way, but the whole solar system is a circle, and that is how circles work. Especially one with both centripetal and centrifugal forces at play throughout the process of the newly forming star. We are part of the Milky Way star system that also seems to be spinning around a central "point". We have not yet determined if that is the center of the universe or if the Milky Way is also spinning around in a huge system with a central point. Some even say that there may not be a central point in the universe. This has led to others pointing out, if there is no central point, then why do we think the "big bang" was even "centralized". It seems to be homogenous and happened everywhere at the same time. If it happened every where at the same time, then what is time?

 

[Agent327]

Maybe it still contains the same material it used to, or even more or less?

That would be the logical conclusion. (Mind you, that does imply no planet 'moved' from the asteroid belt to another location.)

The other option is the moon came out of no where and never hit the earth at all.

That's not an 'option', bu rather pure speculation unconfirmed by facts.

Liquid water needs heat not light.

I wonder in which universe this is true.

The earth started out at the edge and ended up where it is now. That would be the only logical explanation, because most H2O forming closer to the central star, would have eventually been burned or absorbed into the newly forming sun.

Actually, that's just one of the possibilities, and not the most logical one.

 

[timtofly]

That would be the logical conclusion. (Mind you, that does imply no planet 'moved' from the asteroid belt to another location.)

Not really if a planet moved, it is no longer there. Even if there was still a planet there, and debris, it would not imply a planet moved. The only thing that can prove a planet moved is watching it move. It does not imply that a planet formed there. The only thing that it may imply is chunks of rock formed there or a collision happened in the past.

I wonder in which universe this is true.

More than likely one where a campfire at night melts ice into water, instead of the light of the moon or a flashlight, or a laser beam, especially if only coals are left and there are no flames.

Actually, that's just one of the possibilities, and not the most logical one.

So the most logical one is that earth "attracted" more ice balls than other planetary bodies? And continuously since the formation of continents. Is there a particular source that attracts huge amounts of hydrogen and oxygen in large amounts in order to form liquid water?

 

[Berzerker]

... but there was already light by the time there was liquid water.

The light was given a name, "day"... That means this world was spinning closer to the sun than it was in Gen 1:2

of course light in general already existed, but Genesis is talking about a specific kind of light resulting from a change made to the world on the 1st day

The sun, Moon and stars already existed before Gen 1:2, but they would not come to have their new roles in the sky until after the dry land appeared

 

[El_Machinae]

No, you're saying that the water was already there. That means that the Sun was already there. You can't have water without the Sun already being there, without Day and Night already existing, etc.

 

[Agent327]

water preceded day (light)

Not according to the cosmological record. (Nor according to Genesis, by the way.)

Yes, according to Sitchin's theory the "God" in Genesis is another planet that entered our solar system ~4bya and had a violent encounter with a planet covered by water at the snow line (asteroid belt). A large chunk of that world (tehom) ended up here along with a moon displaying evidence of the celestial cataclysm.

Really? So Sitchin now also dabbles in Mesopotamian mythology, does he?

 

[El_Machinae]

Water precedes light in Genesis, if 'The Deep' is referring to water, which it would be if we're trusting their parlance.