Chronogenesis II

[Cabal]

Or pronounced 'very good' --

Genesis 1:31 ¶ And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

I.e. not perfect.

 

[Skaloop]

I.e. not perfect.

Ah, but remember, this is "very good" from God's perspective, which is one of perfection. So even if he had just said it was good (or possibly even if he just said he was done), it would still be perfect.

 

[driewerf]

Actually... Light would not have existed prior to the formation of stars. So I think the order would be:

Hydrogen
Stars
Light
Death of stars to release other elements etc. etc.

Edit to clarify: I should say "visible light" cause I'm sure the EMS was in existence with the inflation of the universe.

I don't think so. The bg bang produced high energy radiation. Presumably X-ray or gamma ray. In the next years the radiation cooled down to the microwave radiation we now know. But the period that the back ground radiation was in the visible part of the spectrum was rather early in the history of the Universe.

 

[ExistenceUnknown]

I don't think so. The bg bang produced high energy radiation. Presumably X-ray or gamma ray. In the next years the radiation cooled down to the microwave radiation we now know. But the period that the back ground radiation was in the visible part of the spectrum was rather early in the history of the Universe.

Ah yes you are correct, the CMB would have been the product of visible light. Forgive me I am still quite the layperson on this topic. I always get hung up by the comments scientists make about the universe being dark until the stars formed.

 

[Doveaman]

I don't think so. The bg bang produced high energy radiation. Presumably X-ray or gamma ray. In the next years the radiation cooled down to the microwave radiation we now know.

How do you determine "years" by mere radiation?

 

[Doveaman]

Ah yes you are correct, the CMB would have been the product of visible light. Forgive me I am still quite the layperson on this topic. I always get hung up by the comments scientists make about the universe being dark until the stars formed.

Genesis 1 confirmed.

 

[Gracchus]

Warning
Dead Thread Walking!

 

[Jazer]

The fact that the biblical account of creation fails to align with reality doesn't mean much to those of us who don't take the myth as literal truth anyway.

You do not accept the big bang as true?
You think that the big bang is a myth?

 

[Jazer]

Dead Thread Walking!

That is up to you if you want to join the living or be a part of the walking dead.

 

[AV1611VET]

That is up to you if you want to join the living or be a part of the walking dead.

ZING!
​

 

[AV1611VET]

For those who think Genesis 1 is compatible with biological evolution, I resubmit this thread as evidence that one would have to do some pretty imaginative interpretation to make Genesis 1 fit their theory.

Would someone do me a favor please, and put these in chronological order according to the Big Bang paradigm:

1. earth
2. water
3. light
4. firmament [atmosphere on earth]
5. land
6. grass
7. [angiosperms]
8. stars
9. moon
10. [first] aquatic life
11. birds
12. whales
13. cattle
14. insects
15. man
16. woman

 

[Dizredux]

Pgp_protector referred to St. Augustine in his sig. I thought it might be good to post the whole quote. (Paragraphed for ease of reading and for the benefit of those who are ADHD.}

Translation by J. H. Taylor in Ancient Christian Writers, Newman Press, 1982, volume 41:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.

Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.

The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.

If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?

Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."

Says it better than I ever could.

Dizredux

 

[AV1611VET]

Says it better than I ever could.

I believe Mr. Augustine's [unspoken] point is that only the Catholic Church is qualified to interpret the Scriptures.

And seeing as how they treated Galileo, and why they treated Galileo that way (interpreting Scripture as today's scientists do: i.e., geocentrism), I don't think Mr. Augustine has a leg to stand on.

 

[Dizredux]

I believe Mr. Augustine's [unspoken] point is that only the Catholic Church is qualified to interpret the Scriptures.

And seeing as how they treated Galileo, and why they treated Galileo that way (interpreting Scripture as today's scientists do: i.e., geocentrism), I don't think Mr. Augustine has a leg to stand on.

Since he did not mention this it was hardly his point but if it makes you feel better to take it that way then do so.

It might be better to listen to what he had to say about Christians looking foolish to non Christians by saying things about which they haven't a clue but you make your own choices.

Dizredux

 

[AV1611VET]

Since he did not mention this it was hardly his point but if it makes you feel better to take it that way then do so.

The Catholic Church was know for their stance on being the true interpreter of the Sciptures.

I believe that's one of the Pope's jobs, is it not?

It might be better to listen to what he had to say about Christians looking foolish to non Christians by saying things about which they haven't a clue but you make your own choices.

Ya ... a geocentrist making a doosey of a statement like he did.

That was really cool.

Infant Baptism, Baptismal Regeneration, Sacramental Salvation, etc. and so on.

And he has the gall to tell me how to watch how I interpret the Scriptures, lest I look foolish?

I don't think so.

 

[Dizredux]

The Catholic Church was know for their stance on being the true interpreter of the Sciptures.

I believe that's one of the Pope's jobs, is it not?

Ya ... a geocentrist making a doosey of a statement like he did.

That was really cool.

Infant Baptism, Baptismal Regeneration, Sacramental Salvation, etc. and so on.

And he has the gall to tell me how to watch how I interpret the Scriptures, lest I look foolish?

I don't think so.

Interesting, you don't like Catholics so Augustine wrong and you can ignore him.

What does Catholic theology have to do with Augustine's comments?

If a Catholic said today is Saturday, does Catholic theology make it wrong?

Dizredux

Dizredux

 

[bhsmte]

Since he did not mention this it was hardly his point but if it makes you feel better to take it that way then do so.

It might be better to listen to what he had to say about Christians looking foolish to non Christians by saying things about which they haven't a clue but you make your own choices.

Dizredux

Coming accross as foolish, is a price some are willing to pay, to protect a specific personal belief.

 

[driewerf]

For those who think Genesis 1 is compatible with biological evolution, I resubmit this thread as evidence that one would have to do some pretty imaginative interpretation to make Genesis 1 fit their theory.

Your question was answered in post nr 48.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7207269-5/#post55222255

 

[AV1611VET]

Your question was answered in post nr 48.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7207269-5/#post55222255

So Earth isn't a product of the Big Bang paradigm?

 

[JayFern]

So Earth isn't a product of the Big Bang paradigm?

It looks like you're stuck with your dreams after all.