In the Beginning...

[timtofly]

It's nigh impossible to describe the Genesis account in modern terms ... it was describing a different model of the universe. It's why the misunderstandings were perpetuated in the later texts. There's a reason future generations thought the Earth was a flat piece of land with a canopy dropped over it ... it's what the earlier texts described.

I am not convinced that Ptolemy took his model from just the Genesis account, or if he used it at all.

The Hebrew does not describe it that way. That is the way the Latin was translated from Greek.

That also contradicts the point that the Hebrews copied from the Babylonians. Then they convinced the rest of the world, that Genesis claims the earth is flat and the center of the universe? Where does that mythology come from? Ptolemy studied the Chaldean and Egyptian astrology records and did some math with his own observations. He still came up with the geocentric model.

Because Middle Eastern tradition and beyond has the water preceding God in the story. Thats why the Psalmist doesn't claim God created the water. Neither does Genesis... But you disagree, you believe God created the universe (which obviously includes the water) before the 1st day of creation. I invite you to quote anything in the Bible crediting God with the creation of the water in Gen 1:2... He gets credit for the "Seas", but not the water that fills them.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth... What are the heavens and the earth and when do they appear in the story? The first mention of anything named Heaven was on the 2nd day and it was placed amidst the waters, and an earth with form (dry land) appeared from under the water on the 3rd day. Genesis doesn't tell us the origin of the planet covered by water, it was already there before God's "wind" arrived to produce day and night.

Genesis says, "In the beginning God created... There was no form, but void." How do we know what this water even is? The water is not defined, it is just named as being, but after the point that God created. It is the Hebrews who claim that the use of the phrase heavens and earths is the concept of the universe, and that is what every one has passed down from generation to generation. No one said it was just the formation of the solar system. As pointed out, the Hebrews were not scientist, and did not seem to be that strict on what the definitions were, except the fact a day started in the evening, there were six days of work, and the Sabbath was a day of rest. Genesis was hardly an exhaustive work on what God created or manipulated. All they were told was that God was responsible for everything. Not even because they were attempting to figure things out, but because that is all that God told them. As a reader, you are claiming that God only gets credit in a limited way. That is not how it reads, but it does seem to be the way you read it. It has been pointed out that time is not relative to God, you even accept that in form, because you use "a day is as a thousand years". If God is not limited by time, why is there an attempt to place God into a particular time frame? God did call the heaven sky, the dry land earth, and the water after the dry land appeared, was called seas. In fact that is still used today. God did not create them. God stretched out space, forming a "dome" shape around the earth. God then stretched out the mantle, and separated the land from the water. God did not even do the stretching by a physical act. God declared it to be and it was. Even the Hebrews, not being scientist, interpreted the way they read it, and claimed that there were pillars holding a flat disk up above the waters. That was their interpretation, and Genesis hardly says any of that. Genesis does not claim the earth is flat. It does not claim the earth rest on pillars. Neither does it say that God corrected their way of thinking. God allowed them to exercise their privilege to read Genesis any way they want to read the account, just like posters here come up with the strangest "readings" of the text.

The fountains of the deep were opened and then it rained. Something caused the ocean to flood the land and fill the skies with water vapor. Maybe it was an impact, many flood myths describe a celestial event.

Good question... So far we dont have evidence of plate tectonics dating that far back nor do we know how much water was present. If the world formed at the asteroid belt then it might have been covered by an ocean dozens of miles deep, far too deep for volcanoes to breach the surface.

Why does the earth have to form at the asteroid belt? There is already scattered "debris" there. If the "debris" never formed, how could the earth form there? For one thing there was more "water" than heavy matter, just like the gas giants. We do not know if that water was liquid, frozen, or gas, until the water was named seas, which is the description of liquid water.

 

[Berzerker]

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

I was under the impression the known asteroids together would still be smaller than our moon. But I dont think that includes all the asteroids that have been absorbed, captured or ejected.

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.

The planet wasn't just water, its surface was covered by water - we had a core, mantle and crust already. The collisions were between this planet and several satellites of another planet before the two planets themselves hit while another satellite took her/our remains to another location (here).

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.

The Flood was geologically very recent... The moon is believed to be ~4.5 byo and Sitchin places creation at ~4 bya prior to the appearance of dry land and life.

 

[Berzerker]

Genesis says, "In the beginning God created... There was no form, but void." How do we know what this water even is? The water is not defined, it is just named as being, but after the point that God created.

What did God create in Gen 1:1? The Earth? We're immediately told the Earth wasn't dry land yet, it says the water covered the world. The Earth wasn't 'created' until the 3rd day.
So "in the beginning" doesn't refer to the beginning of time or the universe. It refers to something that happened on the 3rd day of creation. What about the heaven(s)? What is that? Heaven is the name God gave the firmament on the 2nd day. The heavens only appear in the text afterward when Genesis describes the sky above the dry land.

It is the Hebrews who claim that the use of the phrase heavens and earths is the concept of the universe, and that is what every one has passed down from generation to generation. No one said it was just the formation of the solar system.

They were monotheists, they turned the gods into days and lights in the sky. What role does the universe serve in Genesis? Those days and lights served a purpose, what about the trillions of stars that dont serve one?

you are claiming that God only gets credit in a limited way.

If the authors of Genesis wanted to credit God with creating the water in Gen 1:2 they would have done so. But if they did, they'd be contradicting a creation story already believed throughout the region.

Why does the earth have to form at the asteroid belt? There is already scattered "debris" there. If the "debris" never formed, how could the earth form there? For one thing there was more "water" than heavy matter, just like the gas giants. We do not know if that water was liquid, frozen, or gas, until the water was named seas, which is the description of liquid water.

The asteroid belt is the snow line... Thats where water vapor pushed by the solar wind froze thereby allowing for the rapid accumulation of dust and ice. And thats where the hammered-out bracelet divided the water. I believe Jupiter and Saturn did grow larger by sweeping up materials released during the collisions while capturing hundreds of rocks into orbits.

 

[Lexicus]

I was under the impression the known asteroids together would still be smaller than our moon. But I dont think that includes all the asteroids that have been absorbed, captured or ejected.

Yes, Googling it gives the answer that the mass of the belt is estimated at ~4% of the mass of the Moon.

 

[timtofly]

I was under the impression the known asteroids together would still be smaller than our moon. But I dont think that includes all the asteroids that have been absorbed, captured or ejected.

That may be why they don't call it a "debris field" even though it looks like one.

The planet wasn't just water, its surface was covered by water - we had a core, mantle and crust already. The collisions were between this planet and several satellites of another planet before the two planets themselves hit while another satellite took her/our remains to another location (here) .

If there was no collision, then perhaps the earth grabbed some of this material and left the rest?

The Flood was geologically very recent... The moon is believed to be ~4.5 byo and Sitchin places creation at ~4 bya prior to the appearance of dry land and life.

That is why I said that the planet the earth "hit", and took on part of it's mass and left the moon as a satellite were formed at the same time, but did not collide until a later time. The dating does not confirm the time of the collision, just that both planets formed at the same time. That is not the point of contention. The point of contention is there is no evidence that it happened "less than" x amount of time.

What did God create in Gen 1:1? The Earth? We're immediately told the Earth wasn't dry land yet, it says the water covered the world. The Earth wasn't 'created' until the 3rd day.
So "in the beginning" doesn't refer to the beginning of time or the universe. It refers to something that happened on the 3rd day of creation. What about the heaven(s)? What is that? Heaven is the name God gave the firmament on the 2nd day. The heavens only appear in the text afterward when Genesis describes the sky above the dry land.

They were monotheists, they turned the gods into days and lights in the sky. What role does the universe serve in Genesis? Those days and lights served a purpose, what about the trillions of stars that dont serve one?

If the authors of Genesis wanted to credit God with creating the water in Gen 1:2 they would have done so. But if they did, they'd be contradicting a creation story already believed throughout the region.

The asteroid belt is the snow line... Thats where water vapor pushed by the solar wind froze thereby allowing for the rapid accumulation of dust and ice. And thats where the hammered-out bracelet divided the water. I believe Jupiter and Saturn did grow larger by sweeping up materials released during the collisions while capturing hundreds of rocks into orbits.

God created the universe and then proclaimed the light event. God could not proclaim the water as water, because it was not water. It was the earth as it was forming. The Mesopotamians seemed to think that the earth went through several iterations. The last one would have been the formation of the moon, and the earth in it's final form after the last interaction with another planet. The earth started forming like Jupiter and Saturn. You mentioned water vapor, but that is not water, it is water in it's gas form. Even you use the term water, when you are actually talking about a gas.

 

[Arakhor]

All this stuff is being needlessly confusing. It's partly Berzerker's wacky hypotheses, but also partly Timtofly's imaginative ideas and there's no clear line as to which is which.

 

[Lexicus]

All this stuff is being needlessly confusing. It's partly Berzerker's wacky hypotheses, but also partly Timtofly's imaginative ideas and there's no clear line as to which is which.

Dang, and I was thinking just yesterday how much I admired your ability to parse "all this stuff."

 

[timtofly]

An imaginative conservative is probably not a thing. But if that was my subconscious motive, I guess somehow that end was accomplished?

You should read the wiki article on the Babylonians. It seems now that because they used circles and circular orbits, that some think, they claimed the earth was a sphere, and rotated. The planets may have been understood to orbit the sun. Not sure how they figured the earth came from further out though. We cannot or refuse to calculate the math today to form any testable hypothesis testing that notion.

 

[Arakhor]

Dang, and I was thinking just yesterday how much I admired your ability to parse "all this stuff."

I can handle much of it, but I do have my limits.

 

[Agent327]

I actually think this is somewhat misleading. People think the earth is flat with a dome of sky over it because that's intuitively what it looks like when you're standing on the earth.

I'm not sure what 'intuitive' means here, but it actually doesn't. It's fairly easy to observe that the Earth's surface is rounded. Only the lack of such observation might lead to the idea that 'the Earth is flat'.

The sun existed, but the world of Gen 1:2 covered by water and darkness was further away from that sun, it was at what is now the asteroid belt, the snow line. The sun was also weaker and the moon would have been much dimmer, neither "light" served the roles they were assigned on the 4th day. Genesis is describing the Earth's origin where the firmament called Heaven separated the waters of that dark, primordial world.

You seem to forget about God 'placing the two lights'(sun and moon). Not only that, but you ignore this being pointed out to you.

In addition you ignore having been pointed out repeatedly that the Earth did not start out at the asteroid belt.

In short, it seems you learn nothing.

 

[Berzerker]

Well thats a strange complaint, you just quoted me:

the world of Gen 1:2 covered by water and darkness was further away from that sun, it was at what is now the asteroid belt, the snow line. The sun was also weaker and the moon would have been much dimmer, neither "light" served the roles they were assigned on the 4th day.

The sun and moon were given their roles on the 4th day and you think I forgot my own argument?

 

[El_Machinae]

Keep in mind, you're not just suggesting that liquid water covered the earth before the Sun and Moon had their current configuration, but that liquid water covered the Earth before there was even notable light by which it would be possible to have liquid water. The 'snow line' depends on the distance and intensity of the Sun. If the Sun isn't causing light, the Snow Line is a meaningless term

 

[Berzerker]

Planets produce internal heat but the snow line isn't meaningless because a more distant sun was producing less light.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhh what is going on in this thread! Why do I keep coming back in! Beyond the first couple of pages you could probably swap in ANY of the other pages for the latest page and no-one would even notice, not even the participants. The conversation hasn't moved on AT ALL since about page 3 and it's still no clearer to reaching any sort of resolution, nor even the faintest hint of what that conclusion might even look like. Somebody kill it, please!

 

[tetley]

I concur that the earth looks like it is flat with a dome of sky over it. You have to get pretty high up for it to look otherwise. Nor do I find it incorrect to say, "God created that flat land that you see, and the dome over it.". If He did so by in fact making the earth round (and not the sky), so what?

If you make a synthetic diamond, do you make the carbon dense? It's 99.9999% air--a bunch of carbon nuclei, orbited by electrons, with a bunch of air in between. It's not dense. In fact, it's not air, either: it's vacuum. But then, even calling it vacuum is wrong: vacuum implies 0 pascals pressure. There is very high pressure there, even though it is empty space.

Let's just call the carbon dense. I'm ok with that.

 

[timtofly]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhh what is going on in this thread! Why do I keep coming back in! Beyond the first couple of pages you could probably swap in ANY of the other pages for the latest page and no-one would even notice, not even the participants. The conversation hasn't moved on AT ALL since about page 3 and it's still no clearer to reaching any sort of resolution, nor even the faintest hint of what that conclusion might even look like. Somebody kill it, please!

For one who accepts evolution, you sure hate going through the experience of it.

 

[Agent327]

Odd conclusion. Didn't he just say there's no evolution at all since page3?

The sun and moon were given their roles on the 4th day and you think I forgot my own argument?

Not at all. I merely concluded you learn nothing at all from what people post here. Which is only slightly more harsh than

The conversation hasn't moved on AT ALL since about page 3

.

Seems fairly accurate.

 

[El_Machinae]

Planets produce internal heat but the snow line isn't meaningless because a more distant sun was producing less light.

The snow line is a function of solar radiation. To mention the snow line is to say that the Sun was a significant light source.

... so now 'the Deep' was liquid water that completely covered Earth that was melted by the internal heat of the Earth whilst the Earth was so far away from the Sun that it was an insignificant source of light, less than that of stars?

I concur that the earth looks like it is flat with a dome of sky over it.

Well, yeah. That's why the Bible presents the Earth as a flat plane with a dome stretched over it. And why people state that the various authors and compilers of the Bible didn't have any real insight into the nature of astronomy and why the Hebrews thought the Earth was flat while other scholarly nations knew it was round.

 

[timtofly]

Odd conclusion. Didn't he just say there's no evolution at all since page3?

He is complaining about how much time evolution needs to do anything. That seems to be one of it's more defining features. I keep hearing that there has not been enough time for anything in the Bible to happen the way it has been described.

The snow line is a function of solar radiation. To mention the snow line is to say that the Sun was a significant light source.

... so now 'the Deep' was liquid water that completely covered Earth that was melted by the internal heat of the Earth whilst the Earth was so far away from the Sun that it was an insignificant source of light, less than that of stars?

Well, yeah. That's why the Bible presents the Earth as a flat plane with a dome stretched over it. And why people state that the various authors and compilers of the Bible didn't have any real insight into the nature of astronomy and why the Hebrews thought the Earth was flat while other scholarly nations knew it was round.

The logic of the asteroid belt would be the fact that it has been accepted as containing more "material" in the past. The issue is that a gas giant, ie a planet that would have started out with a huge concentration of hydrogen and oxygen, would at the minimum form at the asteroid belt. The sun being weaker back whenever, would mean that it's influence would not even reach that far. The earth could have formed at any point beyond that, as it would seem that Jupiter and Saturn were also grabbing up some of that material for their satellites. Since we still have Jupiter and Saturn it would seem the earth, since it has a huge amount of water compared to the rest of the inner planets is the only object left in the system, that started out and captured material during it's formation process that changed it from a gas status to a terrestrial one. If we lived on Mars, perhaps we would reason why is there a planet near us that contains an atmosphere and water. Maybe it came from further out as a gas giant and evolved into a terrestrial planet the closer it got to the sun. We would never have experienced what happened on that planet, and be biased by all the opinions of past generations claiming to know or not know what happened.

There are a few other objects in the solar system that are suspect of having an internal ability to generate heat.

The Egyptians who held to the sun as being the preeminent object in the sky thought the earth was a disk, and Ra during the night while on the flip side of the disk, warded off the god of chaos. The Bible does not present the earth as a flat disk, nor do we know that the Hebrews taught that the earth was flat. Now who is making up history? I am not saying that perhaps some thought just like the nations around them that the earth was a disk, but they did not get that from the Bible nor put that in the Bible. They would be similar to modern humans who accept that God used evolution instead of creation. Job 26:10 states: "He fixed a circle on the surface of the water, defining the boundary between light and dark." more than likely refers to Genesis 1:4 when God divided the light from the darkness. That seems to be the author-of-Job's attempt to explain the event. That would lead to this circle is what divides night and day. That however does not explain all light and all darkness. It could mean a rotating circle. It could mean a disk that was light on one side and dark on the other. That however would mean there is always day on one side, and always night on the other side of this "disk", unless this disk flipped over and rotated like a ball. A standard reading, "He marks out the horizon on the surface of the waters as a boundary between light and darkness." seems to only indicate that the horizon is where the day changes to night. It has nothing to do with the shape of the earth, nor calls it a disk. It seems to just state that the sun sets on the horizon, and that the horizon is circular. I suppose that is best viewed over a huge body of water, but a vast flat dessert setting may work as well. The uninterrupted view of the horizon can look like a circle boundary that marks the separation of light and darkness. Some ancient people groups claimed the earth was a disk that floated on the water. The same passage in Job, verse 7, claims, "God suspends the earth on nothing." Of course we now know that is done through gravitational forces. The passage in Job also declares that God destroys the serpent in the sea, just like The Egyptian god Ra wards off the god of chaos. Now the author may have been using parts of the Egyptian myth, but they clearly are changing it, which would indicate that they did not accept what other ancients were claiming. They did not accept that the earth was a disk floating on the waters, but that the earth was actually "round". In Isaiah 40:22, It just states that when one is high enough away from the Circle we call earth, humans look like grass hoppers. That would be describing the dome above the earth, not the "disk" of the equator. Proverbs 8:27 is about wisdom before the earth was formed. It presents God as "using" a circle "cookie cutter" to "form" earth from the "deep". An accreting earth is a circle, in form. It is a sphere in shape. It doesn't necessarily mean that God was limited to a disk shaped earth. None of those passages was changed to incorporate the newly forming view of the Greeks that the earth was a round sphere, nor do they indicate that the Hebrews claimed the earth was a disk. That is a purely made up myth to fit the Hebrews into a mold along with all the other nations around them.

 

[Berzerker]

Not at all. I merely concluded you learn nothing at all from what people post here. Which is only slightly more harsh than.

You just said I was ignoring the sun and moon in Earth's sky in response to a quote in which I talked about the sun and moon in Earth's sky. What am I supposed to learn from that? This is what you choose to argue over while complaining about the level of discourse?

The snow line is a function of solar radiation. To mention the snow line is to say that the Sun was a significant light source.

... so now 'the Deep' was liquid water that completely covered Earth that was melted by the internal heat of the Earth whilst the Earth was so far away from the Sun that it was an insignificant source of light, less than that of stars?

You argued water needed "notable light" to be water. I identified another source of heat. You make it sound like I changed my argument, from what to what? The moon was supposedly formed ~4.45 bya, that impact would have produced immense heat and kept the planet warm enough for water. And the moon was much closer back then, the tidal action would have also supplied heat. The point is: the sun and moon in the sky of that earlier world were much less dominant - but they became great because the Earth was now closer to the sun.