Genesis Correlates With Science

[logical4u]

To some extent, yes, this is true and indisputable. The Bible should not be taken literally. To do so is the worst kind of folly.

The extent to which God is a human construct, however, is infinitely debatable. Do humans project their behavior into their deities? I am convinced that they always have, because that is just a part of human nature, just like jealousy, invention, ambivalence, and a host of other facets of good old fashioned human frailty.

The Bible is highly symbolic, especially the OT. Taking it literally is more of a Christian tendency than a Jewish one. PC is an adult and can speak for herself, but I don't know that her OP is necessarily meant to say that the Genesis story is a literal one. As a symbolic representation of the origin of the Universe, the points presented have merit.

As far as I'm concerned, peoples' reliance on faith, science, or any combination of the two is their business as is their desire to share it or proselytize, and others' acceptance or resistance to it. Ain't the 1st Amendment grand?

"I don't know that her OP is necessarily meant to say that the Genesis story is a literal one..."


This is not about the Bible as a whole....much of which is metaphorical.

Chapter one of Genesis is provably correct as to the order of events in the creation of the universe, and life on our planet.
It corresponds to the order accepted by modern science.
Amazingly.

My series of posts is meant to show that.

Your series of posts only show you will lie in the face of the truth.

There is no accepted order by modern science that has a wasted Earth and the deep seas created before the light. This has already been shown to you earlier in this thread only to be ignored by you because you have no response to it other than to just repeat what you know to be a lie.

Thank you.

What "light", and be specific, please?

 

[edthecynic]

"I don't know that her OP is necessarily meant to say that the Genesis story is a literal one..."


This is not about the Bible as a whole....much of which is metaphorical.

Chapter one of Genesis is provably correct as to the order of events in the creation of the universe, and life on our planet.
It corresponds to the order accepted by modern science.
Amazingly.

My series of posts is meant to show that.

Your series of posts only show you will lie in the face of the truth.

There is no accepted order by modern science that has a wasted Earth and the deep seas created before the light. This has already been shown to you earlier in this thread only to be ignored by you because you have no response to it other than to just repeat what you know to be a lie.

Thank you.

What "light", and be specific, please?

If you have read this thread, or at least the OP, you would know that PompousCheek claims that the "light" is the "light" created by God which she claims fits the "creation" order of modern science. PC claims that the Big Bang "light" came before the formation of Sun "light" so the bible order of creation matches the scientific order of creation, Big Bang "light" first Sun later.

However, if you again have followed this thread, she has run away from my posts once I pointed out that a wasted Earth and the deep seas existed IN DARKNESS before God said "let there be 'light'" which matches no known modern scientific order of creation.

 

[there4eyeM]

The Bible didn't say that, Allah did.........

That's odd; so now you're saying 'Allah' is wrong?

 

[Care4all]

To some extent, yes, this is true and indisputable. The Bible should not be taken literally. To do so is the worst kind of folly.

The extent to which God is a human construct, however, is infinitely debatable. Do humans project their behavior into their deities? I am convinced that they always have, because that is just a part of human nature, just like jealousy, invention, ambivalence, and a host of other facets of good old fashioned human frailty.

The Bible is highly symbolic, especially the OT. Taking it literally is more of a Christian tendency than a Jewish one. PC is an adult and can speak for herself, but I don't know that her OP is necessarily meant to say that the Genesis story is a literal one. As a symbolic representation of the origin of the Universe, the points presented have merit.

As far as I'm concerned, peoples' reliance on faith, science, or any combination of the two is their business as is their desire to share it or proselytize, and others' acceptance or resistance to it. Ain't the 1st Amendment grand?

"I don't know that her OP is necessarily meant to say that the Genesis story is a literal one..."


This is not about the Bible as a whole....much of which is metaphorical.

Chapter one of Genesis is provably correct as to the order of events in the creation of the universe, and life on our planet.
It corresponds to the order accepted by modern science.
Amazingly.

My series of posts is meant to show that.

Your series of posts only show you will lie in the face of the truth.

There is no accepted order by modern science that has a wasted Earth and the deep seas created before the light. This has already been shown to you earlier in this thread only to be ignored by you because you have no response to it other than to just repeat what you know to be a lie.

Thank you.

Are you so certain on that? Why couldn't the Earth have been in "darkness" before the other planet or asteroid hit the Earth that formed the moon? Our "Tilt" towards the sun was obviously "changed" when this planet hit us and then formed the moon....shoot, our tilt towards the sun has changed with just a mega earthquake here on Earth....

There is plenty of scientific evidence through viewing other planets and moons that show us that "darkness" can occur due to the tilt or orbit of a planet or moon....ala, the "Dark side of the moon" , or Uranus with its tilt hay-wacky and knocked on it's side....?

 

[Care4all]

1. God’s first command in Genesis is “Let there be light.” Nor is this the only introduction of light in the Genesis creation account, but it is the first, it represents the beginning of the formation of our solar system.




2. The Sumarians believed that the earth lay at the center of the universe, and the ancient Israelites saw the stars as a heavenly sphere that enclosed everything.

3. The idea that th earth is round emerged some time after the Old Testament was written, when in the late sixth century BCE Pythagoras declared that the earth, along with the other planets, was spherical.

a. In 287 BCE, Strato of Lampsacus’ school “advanced the theory that the sun was at rest at the center of the sphere of fixed stars, and that the earth and planets revolved around the sun.”
Greek Astronomy




4. Then, in the 20th century, Einstein advanced his theory of general relativity, the implication of which was that the universe was not static- it must be expanding or contracting.

a. An understanding of the red shift pretty much established an expanding universe. With this came the realization that there must have been a beginning.

5. And that was ‘The Big Bang’…some 13,700 million years ago. Quite an event…it lasted just 10 to the minus 35th seconds, beginning the universe, generating time and space, as well as all the matter and energy that the universe would ever, ever, contain!

6. The basic forces of nature emerged- first gravity, then the strong force that holds the nuclei of atoms together (no atoms existed at this time), followed by weaker, then ‘electromagnetic’ forces. By the end of the firs second, there were quarks and electrons, nutrinos, some other stuff….and, later, some of them smashed together to form protons and neutrons.





7. So, there we have the idea of the universe suddenly appearing at a beginning, and all of that from a huge amount of energy. Of course, that doesn’t begin to ask the obvious: what existed before the Big Bang, and where did all that energy come from?

8. And, of course, the ancient Israelites behind the account of creation in Genesis, chapter 1, would have been oblivious to all the detailed described above. No idea about any ‘Big Bang.’

9. Probably anyone writing a creation account should have begun with the idea of the formation of the sun and the planets….shouldn’t they? Without the sun…how could Genesis refer to the ‘days’ of creation? So…“Let there be light” doesn’t really entail much….does it? It makes intuitive sense: light needs the sun....doesn't it?

a. Even the pagan world figured this out: most tended to worship the sun as the source of all life.
But Genesis doesn’t speak of the sun…..only of light, until verses 14-19.





10. Big Bang…explosion….energy….light. But no atoms to form the sun for some time. Light…but no sun? So says science. And so says Genesis.
Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter two.

a. For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.




Interesting? Modern scientific narrative and biblical narrative seem to agree here.
LIght....energy....but no sun...

But there’s more in the Genesis author’s narrative. There follows an order of events of the creation.
A pretty specific order of events.
And it’s surprisingly accurate.

We had a debate thread on this about 4-5 years ago....and I knew back then what your op brings out now.....what took so long for the rest of you?

You have addressed nothing. Rather, you have evaded the matter and changed your position several times in order to avoid facing the reality that Genesis 1 contradicts itself and established realities regarding the nature and history of the universe.

Here's my simple position...

Science has not ruled that the progression spoken in Genesis1 is not true. I am amazed that this kind of information was even known to people over 3-4000 years ago.

It speaks of our galaxy being formed, with evening and morning...(the sun being the center), otherwise there would be no evening and morning...so all the planets were already getting their light from the sun.... churches and religions bastardized this over the millenniums and twisted the meaning, or from pure misunderstanding of gnensis twisted the meaning, or out of arrogance twisted the meaning in to thinking the sun revolved around the earth....THE BIBLE NEVER STATED SUCH.

I can understand your concern on it saying plant life began before we got the sun and the moon...

but I do NOT read it in the same manner...

I read it that we already had the sun, (or there would not have been several mentions in earlier passages that there was evening and morning, day and night), and the passage speaking specifically about the sun and the moon with their light and the stars affixed in a position to give us the power to predict our seasons as the position we finally ended up from distance and axis tilt, to the sun.....giving us the STABLE 24 hour days and nights that are known to us now with the stars in their position to us and the sun, we have now.

Plant life could have had the light needed from the sun to begin, before we ended up with the 24 hour days and nights we have now with our relationship to the sun and with our moon.

all I am saying is that this has NOT been ruled out yet....

Have you ever read and seen drawings of Uranus...it is spinning COMPLETELY on its side....it DID NOT begin its spinning on its side....it was upright, like the rest of us, but it was hit by an asteroid or something and was PUSHED through the bombardment, from it's upright spin to spinning on its side....all the planets took a beating early on and were NOT in the positions or distance from the sun, as they are today or for the last billion years.

Are you saying this is not the case?

Care

 

[edthecynic]

"I don't know that her OP is necessarily meant to say that the Genesis story is a literal one..."


This is not about the Bible as a whole....much of which is metaphorical.

Chapter one of Genesis is provably correct as to the order of events in the creation of the universe, and life on our planet.
It corresponds to the order accepted by modern science.
Amazingly.

My series of posts is meant to show that.

Your series of posts only show you will lie in the face of the truth.

There is no accepted order by modern science that has a wasted Earth and the deep seas created before the light. This has already been shown to you earlier in this thread only to be ignored by you because you have no response to it other than to just repeat what you know to be a lie.

Thank you.

Are you so certain on that? Why couldn't the Earth have been in "darkness" before the other planet or asteroid hit the Earth that formed the moon? Our "Tilt" towards the sun was obviously "changed" when this planet hit us and then formed the moon....shoot, our tilt towards the sun has changed with just a mega earthquake here on Earth....

There is plenty of scientific evidence through viewing other planets and moons that show us that "darkness" can occur due to the tilt or orbit of a planet or moon....ala, the "Dark side of the moon" , or Uranus with its tilt hay-wacky and knocked on it's side....?

Except according to PC the Sun does not exist yet and the Big Bang has not happened yet and the wasted Earth and the deep seas exist in darkness. She says this is supported by the "modern" scientific theories after Einstein.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

To Jimmy Jam: do you think that under Jung's theory people can and do worship Politics as a form of religion or God?

Abso-f***ing-lutely! One need only have watched Obama's acceptance speech during the last election to see the near fanatical adoration of the crowd. No, that does not make Obama the "Antichrist" of the Bible as some fundamentalists see him. It's simply and example of the kind of political "worship" that I'm talking about.

Also can people be non religious and support a political party that is inherently religiously influenced.

Yes again. I am not religious but I am a Republican. Whether or not the GOP is inherently religiously influenced is debatable, but I am frequently at odds with that component of the party.

or can a person be of a religious persuasion and support a political party that is inherently anti religiously influenced?

Yes. There is such a thing as Christian Socialism. Catholics have frequently been Democrats. Reconciling one's spiritual beliefs with one's partisan affiliations is a daunting task for me. I don't know how it comes so easily for so many.

 

[edthecynic]

4. Then, in the 20th century, Einstein advanced his theory of general relativity, the implication of which was that the universe was not static- it must be expanding or contracting.

a. An understanding of the red shift pretty much established an expanding universe. With this came the realization that there must have been a beginning.

Only to non-physicist know-it-alls.

To a physicist a red shift only indicates movement away from the observer. For those physicists who theorize an expanding universe from the Big Bang curving around itself into a contracting universe at the Big Crunch, the red shift can indicate an acceleration away from us here towards the contraction of a universal supermassive Black hole, the theoretical "other side" of the Big Bang.

 

[Michelle420]

To Jimmy Jam: do you think that under Jung's theory people can and do worship Politics as a form of religion or God?

Abso-f***ing-lutely! One need only have watched Obama's acceptance speech during the last election to see the near fanatical adoration of the crowd. No, that does not make Obama the "Antichrist" of the Bible as some fundamentalists see him. It's simply and example of the kind of political "worship" that I'm talking about.

Also can people be non religious and support a political party that is inherently religiously influenced.

Yes again. I am not religious but I am a Republican. Whether or not the GOP is inherently religiously influenced is debatable, but I am frequently at odds with that component of the party.

or can a person be of a religious persuasion and support a political party that is inherently anti religiously influenced?

Yes. There is such a thing as Christian Socialism. Catholics have frequently been Democrats. Reconciling one's spiritual beliefs with one's partisan affiliations is a daunting task for me. I don't know how it comes so easily for so many.

Same here, at times it's hard for me to wrap my mind around it.

It all depends on which religion and political party are bing combined by the individual.

If I am engaged in some kind of Political discussion that has a social issue aspect to it, there are moments I just have to ponder.

 

[edthecynic]

 

[DStar777]

how christiany of you

I think it goes something like this: How Christian of you.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

In re "big bang theory"

The universe is dynamic; is constantly changing. We can't 'know' it expands and contracts, but there is no 'static' theory of the universe; further, nothing known at this time is 'static' eternally . Additional probabilities include that while the universe can likely expand infinitely, contraction almost certainly is limited to some finite point.

In the latter state, maximum possible contraction of mass and energy, lies the, uh, genesis, of the big bang theory.

 

[PoliticalChic]

how christiany of you

I think it goes something like this: How Christian of you.

Heck....next you'll be punctuating ee cumming's poetry!

 

[logical4u]

Your series of posts only show you will lie in the face of the truth.

There is no accepted order by modern science that has a wasted Earth and the deep seas created before the light. This has already been shown to you earlier in this thread only to be ignored by you because you have no response to it other than to just repeat what you know to be a lie.

Thank you.

What "light", and be specific, please?

If you have read this thread, or at least the OP, you would know that PompousCheek claims that the "light" is the "light" created by God which she claims fits the "creation" order of modern science. PC claims that the Big Bang "light" came before the formation of Sun "light" so the bible order of creation matches the scientific order of creation, Big Bang "light" first Sun later.

However, if you again have followed this thread, she has run away from my posts once I pointed out that a wasted Earth and the deep seas existed IN DARKNESS before God said "let there be 'light'" which matches no known modern scientific order of creation.

"Light" had to come from "something".




The Creation of Light
Genesis 1

1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

6. And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

9. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

10. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.


It appears that the LORD made "heaven and earth" (gases, liquids, and solids).
It appears the LORD ordered the universe before working on the earth.
It appears that the LORD made "light" before forming the earth.

If you want to go according to the Bible.