As AV wrote, if it contradicts the bible, it's wrong.

[Lord Emsworth]

What don't I believe?

The Bible.

Apples, Oranges, and Bananas.

 

[HappyCat]

I don't care what Paine was.

Why did you cite him as an example of a nature worshiping atheist, then? You evidently don't care about the accuracy of the statements you make.

Any wonder why he didn't understand? Hint: "Search not the book called the Scriptures..."

He lacked your hubris? He wasn't deluded?

If you're not going to believe the claims of the Bible, Itself that It's inspired; you're sure not going to believe my claims, either. Is there anyone who claims the Bible is inspired that you do believe? If not, then what point are you making here?

Would you believe any document that stated it was inspired by god? If not, why not? Why believe the bible? You're absolutely right I don't believe you. You've provided no reason for me to believe anything you say. You don't make sense.

 

[Soul Searcher]

If both verses use the same word, "shamayim," I see little reason not to consider them the same.

Understood.. the word does have multiple meanings though so it could go either way.

(Futhermore, it does appear that later on the celestial bodies are placed into "the dome of the sky." )

Yes I agree, it seems that the people back then had very little idea about these things.

I would agree. But then again, the planet Earth (as we know it) isn't in there anywhere.

It may not be specifically there in some unique word form but to me it seems pretty clear that when it says God created the heaven and the earth it is referring to the world we live in then later the same word is used to refer to the soil. As with many Hebrew words this word has more than one meaning and it would be an error to assume that it must mean the same thing in each instance where it occurs.

Of course there are ancient notions of the cosmos found in the text that have very little, if anything, to do with our modern notions.

Yep

I'd be very cautious to call these people primitive, though. The author of the first creation account shows his literary capabilities by producing a skillfully structured text.

I guess primitive is not a well defined statement but by todays standards I would say that they were indeed. As for the author of the first creation account, we have no idea who that may have been, nor do we know how many times it may have been modified over the years, then of course translated but even in it's current form it does not show very good structure especially when we continue on into chapter 2.

 

[Loudmouth]

the house.
see your contractor

I don't think you understood the argument.

One man looks at the blueprint and sees that there should be a wall in a specific spot in the house.

One man is standing inside the house and sees no wall at that specific spot.

Man A says that there is a wall. Man B says there is no wall. Who is right, and why?

If the blueprint is different from reality do we ignore reality and go by what the blueprint says? In the same vein, if your interpretation of Genesis conflicts with reality do you then ignore reality and instead accept what Genesis says?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

As for the author of the first creation account, we have no idea who that may have been, nor do we know how many times it may have been modified over the years, then of course translated but even in it's current form it does not show very good structure especially when we continue on into chapter 2.

It only continues for 4 1/2 verses into the second chapter. But why would you think that there is no good structure?

The way I see it, you first get a description of the state before creation. Then comes creation itself, broken down into filling and forming, with each chunk (day) bracketed by the same phrases. Lastly a 'desctiption' of the state after creation. And the whole 'story' is bracketed by some sort of summary statements (Gen 1:1 and Gen 2:4a).

 

[Soul Searcher]

It only continues for 4 1/2 verses into the second chapter. But why would you think that there is no good structure?

The way I see it, you first get a description of the state before creation. Then comes creation itself, broken down into filling and forming, with each chunk (day) bracketed by the same phrases. Lastly a 'desctiption' of the state after creation. And the whole 'story' is bracketed by some sort of summary statements (Gen 1:1 and Gen 2:4a).

Well perhaps I should start by pointing out that I am not a writer so my take on the structure from that standpoint may be way off.

I have a problem seeing the first part as a summary followed by detail. It starts by saying that in the begining God created the heaven and the earth. I take this to mean that these things are created at this point if this is not the case then we run into a problem later. Namely when was the waters created? The assumption would be that they were part of the heaven and the earth already created but if that first line is not taken to be the creation of said objects then would we assume that water always existed or they just forgot to mention that part or ?

Then we see the light divided from the darkness in 3 different places, day and night, evening and morning without the sun, plants herbs and trees without the sun.

So my take on the structure is more from a logical perspective than that of writing.

To me as it is written it is not plausable at all either someone wrote it down wrong or they just made it up.

 

[GrayCat]

On the topic of what God created. When did he create Hell?

Was it after Lucifer rebelled and God cast him out of heaven? Because i don't recall it being mentioned in Genesis.


Also, just occured to me, is there a parallel between the stories of Lucifer, and Adam & Eve? (trying to attain God's power/knowledge?)

 

[Wyzaard]

1. "What" God is?

Good question!

 

[AV1611VET]

On the topic of what God created. When did he create Hell?

Was it after Lucifer rebelled and God cast him out of heaven? Because i don't recall it being mentioned in Genesis.

It wouldn't be in Genesis 1 --- God prepared Hell --- He didn't create Hell.

[bible]Matthew 25:41[/bible]

 

[Soul Searcher]

On the topic of what God created. When did he create Hell?

Was it after Lucifer rebelled and God cast him out of heaven? Because i don't recall it being mentioned in Genesis.


Also, just occured to me, is there a parallel between the stories of Lucifer, and Adam & Eve? (trying to attain God's power/knowledge?)

The whole Lucifer story is quite a mess. It is amazing that two little errors could make so many people read so much into this word.

The errors "L" and the word lucifier. it is not a name, not a proper noun and not an English word. rather it is a Latin word that should have been translated into English it means light bearer. This part of the KJV is a hold over from the old bishops bible that was translated from the Latin translation of the OT rather than the Hebrew.

The chapter where the word occurs is actually talking about the king of babylon and not the devil, nothing to do with any angels nor any literal fall from heaven or any such thing but all about the king of babylon.

The actual story we are so familar with of Lucifer comes from outside the bible with a few bible verses thrown in for support.

 

[Soul Searcher]

Hell in the bible is a poor translation of 4 different words

 

[GrayCat]

So you can infer from the linguistics that the concept of hell is Man made?

And also that the Bible was indeed written by humans, not a deity?

Kind of obvious questions, but i'm just making sure i follow.

 

[AV1611VET]

This part of the KJV is a hold over from the old bishops bible that was translated from the Latin translation of the OT rather than the Hebrew.

I'd say it goes farther back than the Bishop's Bible:

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

How art thou fallen from heauen, O Lucifer, sonne of the morning? and cutte downe to the grounde, which didest cast lottes vpon the nations?

Howe art thou fallen from heauen O Lucifer, thou faire mornyng chylde? Howe hast thou gotten a fall euen to the grounde, which didst weaken the nations?

A! Lucifer, that risidist eerli, hou feldist thou doun fro heuene; thou that woundist folkis, feldist doun togidere in to erthe.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Well perhaps I should start by pointing out that I am not a writer so my take on the structure from that standpoint may be way off.

I have a problem seeing the first part as a summary followed by detail. It starts by saying that in the begining God created the heaven and the earth. I take this to mean that these things are created at this point if this is not the case then we run into a problem later. Namely when was the waters created? The assumption would be that they were part of the heaven and the earth already created but if that first line is not taken to be the creation of said objects then would we assume that water always existed or they just forgot to mention that part or ?

I think the waters simply existed. They are chaos, or even nonexistence(?). They are what is without God. Compare the role the waters play in stories such as the flood, the Exodus or in the story with Jesus and Peter on the Lake of Gennesaret.

Then we see the light divided from the darkness in 3 different places, day and night, evening and morning without the sun, plants herbs and trees without the sun.

People might have believed that light (and darkness) exists independently of the sun. After all, for a short time before dawn and a short time after dusk there is light although the sun is not up yet or already down. And on cloudy days there is still daylight.

Of course the sun (and the other celestial bodies) do give some additional light, but in the end they are seen as inhabitants of light and darkness. As the rulers of night and day. (Just as fish and birds inhabit the seas and the skies, while land animals and humans inhabit the land)

So my take on the structure is more from a logical perspective than that of writing.

To me as it is written it is not plausable at all either someone wrote it down wrong or they just made it up.

I think it is just ancient. And quite different.

 

[Soul Searcher]

I'd say it goes farther back than the Bishop's Bible:

Yes ... I forgot about the Wycliffe.

 

[Soul Searcher]

I think the waters simply existed. They are chaos, or even nonexistence(?). They are what is without God. Compare the role the waters play in stories such as the flood, the Exodus or in the story with Jesus and Peter on the Lake of Gennesaret.



People might have believed that light (and darkness) exists independently of the sun. After all, for a short time before dawn and a short time after dusk there is light although the sun is not up yet or already down. And on cloudy days there is still daylight.

Of course the sun (and the other celestial bodies) do give some additional light, but in the end they are seen as inhabitants of light and darkness. As the rulers of night and day. (Just as fish and birds inhabit the seas and the skies, while land animals and humans inhabit the land)



I think it is just ancient. And quite different.

Interesting.. never thought of the water quite that way, I always assumed it referred to the oceans.

 

[Wyzaard]

I think the waters simply existed. They are chaos, or even nonexistence(?). They are what is without God. Compare the role the waters play in stories such as the flood, the Exodus or in the story with Jesus and Peter on the Lake of Gennesaret.

Also look up the Babylonian stories of Marduk's defeat of Tiamat, described as being primordial chaos... or Ishtar's descent into the underworld of Ereshkigel, described as bsing a dark ocean deep below the existing world...

 

[Merlin]

I don't think you understood the argument.

One man looks at the blueprint and sees that there should be a wall in a specific spot in the house.

One man is standing inside the house and sees no wall at that specific spot.

Man A says that there is a wall. Man B says there is no wall. Who is right, and why?

If the blueprint is different from reality do we ignore reality and go by what the blueprint says?

I see.
But...
I have no blueprint of creation, only a brief description.
I have seen no error in it.

In the same vein, if your interpretation of Genesis conflicts with reality do you then ignore reality and instead accept what Genesis says?

I look for *my* error, either in my understanding of reality or my understanding of Genesis.

 

[Merlin]

On the topic of what God created. When did he create Hell?

Was it after Lucifer rebelled and God cast him out of heaven? Because i don't recall it being mentioned in Genesis.

Lots of things are not referred to in Genesis.
Genesis was not meant to cover all things.

Also, just occured to me, is there a parallel between the stories of Lucifer, and Adam & Eve? (trying to attain God's power/knowledge?)

There is indeed a parallel.
Satan tried to deceive Adam &Eve.

 

[Loudmouth]

I see.
But...
I have no blueprint of creation, only a brief description.
I have seen no error in it.

Creationists look at Genesis and read of a recent global flood, a young earth, etc. Geologists look at the Earth and see processes that take millions of years and zero evidence of a recent global flood. Who is right?

I look for *my* error, either in my understanding of reality or my understanding of Genesis.

How do you know which is in error?