Genesis chapter 1 and reality

[Jpark]

Jpark, from my recollection God called his sons, and Satan came also. God asked Satan have you seen my servant Job ? he's pretty good. Satan says something like I bet I can make him curse you, and God says go on then, have a go, but don't harm him personally. This goes on a few times till God lets Satan harm Job personally, which is when Job curses the day he was born, which is when God turns up angry, and throws a torrent of words at Job like where were you when your great great granddad was in nappies.
So Job 18:4 is saying, something like "Job you [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], I just lost a bet because of you, you are so insignificant, don't go thinking you are something big."

You really do need to read the Bible instead of relying on recollections. God isn't talking to Job in Job 18:4. It's his friend Bildad.

We should not underestimate the Israelites, the Jews. They had knowledge of the ancient world, of the earth's core (Revelation 9:2-3, Numbers 16).

 

[cupid dave]

We should not underestimate the Israelites, the Jews. They had knowledge of the ancient world, of the earth's core (Revelation 9:2-3, Numbers 16).

The bottomless pit...?

I believe they were given knowledge as we find in Genesis which most all of them did not recognize for what it was at the time.
The fact is that most of the things in Genesis were so "far out" for the common mind of that day.

How COULD they have accepted more details than the Gen 1:9-10 claims on "Pangea?":







Gen. 1:9 And (Father Nature, Reality), “God,” said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, (Panthalassa), and let (Pangea/Rodinia), the dry land appear: (composed of the Seven Large Tectonic Plates:

1. North American Plate,
2. Pacific Plate,
3. South American Plate,
4. African Plate,
5. Eurasian Plate,
6. Antartic Plate,
7. Australian Plate),

... and it was so.

 

[cupid dave]

Huram Abi
This is incorrect. Cyanobacteria oxygenated the earth.

Animals can live off of fungus, bacteria, and each other.


Plants were neither necessary for oxygen or a foodsource that primitive microorganisms needed in order to feed.

The Bible is accurate...

This also included cyanobacteria, a blue-green algae, which produces oxygen. Of phytoplankton, Scientific American says: “Every drop of water in the top 100 meters of the ocean contains thousands of free-floating, microscopic flora called phytoplankton.” (Aug 2002)

For the animals that were created on day five, there was now in place lush vegetation for them, with the carbon/oxygen exchange in operation.

Yes, Harumi is trying hard to establish the idea that because science is still "fumbling around trying to determine how best to Classify life on Earth, yjay bacteria and algea are not Plant life.

He is unschooled on the matter, and does not realize that Science admits that the "Kingdom" classifications are artificial and WRONG.

 

[Huram Abi]

Huram Abi
This is incorrect. Cyanobacteria oxygenated the earth.

Animals can live off of fungus, bacteria, and each other.


Plants were neither necessary for oxygen or a foodsource that primitive microorganisms needed in order to feed.





Yes, Harumi is trying hard to establish the idea that because science is still "fumbling around trying to determine how best to Classify life on Earth, yjay bacteria and algea are not Plant life.

He is unschooled on the matter, and does not realize that Science admits that the "Kingdom" classifications are artificial and WRONG.

No, Cupid. We are clear on how to classify life. You are the one trying to cry wolf and claim we don't know how to classify life.

I'd like to see you try to present a peer reveiewed work that agrees with you that the kingdoms are wrong.

Not one of these hobby websites from vetranarian numerologists or new wave backpackers, but an actual scientific study that suggests we do away with our system of organizing life because it is "artificial and WRONG."

Good luck.

 

[cupid dave]

dave:
Yes, Harumi is trying hard to establish the idea that because science is still "fumbling around trying to determine how best to Classify life on Earth, yjay bacteria and algea are not Plant life.

He is unschooled on the matter, and does not realize that Science admits that the "Kingdom" classifications are artificial and WRONG.

No, Cupid. We are clear on how to classify life. You are the one trying to cry wolf and claim we don't know how to classify life.

I'd like to see you try to present a peer reveiewed work that agrees with you that the kingdoms are wrong.

Not one of these hobby websites from vetranarian numerologists or new wave backpackers, but an actual scientific study that suggests we do away with our system of organizing life because it is "artificial and WRONG."

Good luck.

Clear?
We...?

You are ill advised.


Science admits that these classifications into kingdoms is just an exercise in subjective thinking.
It is not correct and certainly, does not dictate what life forms are plants and what are animals simple by writing the names in on jingdom or another.









NOTE:

• Kingdoms such as Bacteria represent grades rather than clades, and so are rejected by phylogenetic classification systems.
• Research in the 21st century does not support the classification of the eukaryotes into any of the standard systems.
• As of April 2010, the situation appears to be that there is no set of kingdoms sufficiently supported by current research to gain widespread acceptance;


as Roger & Simpson say: "with the current pace of change in our understanding of the eukaryote tree of life, we should proceed with caution."[31]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_(biology)

 

[Huram Abi]

1) I asked for a peer reveiwed paper, not a wiki article.

2) You need to stop strawmanning. No one has claimed that the classification system "dictates(s) what life forms are plants and what are animals simply by writing the names in one kingdom or another."

If that is what you are arguing against, you are talking to yourself, because no one has suggested that this is the case. This is a well-developed (over centuries of study) discipline that wouldn't resort to the type of pseudoscience you are suggesting.

In any event, you don't get ANY closer to your claim that bacteria are plants. "Kingdoms" and "Domains" are replaced by biological names for only the most inclusive taxa: Prokarya (bacteria) and Eukarya (symbiosis-derived nucleated organisms).

Molecular biology, life-history and fossil record evidence support the reunification of bacteria with Prokarya while still dividing Eukarya into uniquely defined subtaxa: Animalia, Plantae, Fungi and Protoctista.

We still use subdivisions in phylogenetics and those subdivisions STILL support that bacteria are not plants.

 

[DanielGillan]

Jpark, I do read the bible, and I've read Job several times. I cannot recall the exact verses, and if it was his mate talking to him, he was telling him not to get too big for his boots. He woulda called the moon the moon, he just used the Earth earlier in the sentence. I know the story well, just not line for line.
Huram Abi, it's quite impossible to prove with todays science, that there were plants before the Sun. Keep an open mind though, because introducing a massive fusion reactor to vegetation, is going to destroy all the evidence.
Cupid dave, the graphic you have produced with the continents, happened in the 5th day, after the sun was completed. The 3rd day would have been when god said let the waters be gathered together into one place, I would much prefer the use of the term fluids as I have mentioned in an earlier post.
The only way I can reconcile the earth gaining form on the 3rd day is to have it obliterated and reformed on the 4th.

 

[cupid dave]

In any event, you don't get ANY closer to your claim that bacteria are plants. "Kingdoms" and "Domains" are replaced by biological names for only the most inclusive taxa: Prokarya (bacteria) and Eukarya (symbiosis-derived nucleated organisms).

Molecular biology, life-history and fossil record evidence support the reunification of bacteria with Prokarya while still dividing Eukarya into uniquely defined subtaxa: Animalia, Plantae, Fungi and Protoctista.

We still use subdivisions in phylogenetics and those subdivisions STILL support that bacteria are not plants.

You are just trying bust balls over nonsense.

1) I am saying that this is all irrelevant to what genesis 1:11 says, since te Hebrew or the word "grass" used in the OJV Bible actually means "the irst sprouts on Earth."

That is not related to yopur criticism that I say plants apeeared beore animals, because bacteria anjd green algea we the first.

2) But, in regard to what I do say about bacteria being plants, they have Cell Walls, and utilize CO2 the produce energy with the by-product of oxygen.

That is sufficient to make my case, imo.

3) Your case is weak,... claiming that, as the biologists have tried (and failed) to organize life organism evermore definitively, they have decided to create 4 types of life forms which seems (but does not) suggest there are other living things beside animals and plants.

 

[Huram Abi]

Cupid, we've been over this regarding cell walls. Now that I've clearly shown that Bacteria are in Prokarya while plants are in Eukarya in terms of phylogenetics, it doesn't matter if you re-hash this argument.

Now you are going to presume that YOU know better than biologists, themselves, since the facts don't mesh with your now defunct hope? That's just sad. Over the years biologists have gotten better at categorizing life using better tools, techniques and methods.

As with all science, any improvement is not any indication of failure.

Cell walls are not sufficient to make your case. I could go over the "bats and insects are not birds just because they have wings" explanation that clears this up as I did the last time, but it isn't even necessary.

The DNA is in, my friend, and the DNA doesn't lie. If Maurie Povich were here he'd be saying, "I'm sorry, but you are NOT the father."

Bacteria are not plants. They don't even fall under the same taxon.

 

[Huram Abi]

You know, having to go over this again and again, I forgot what your need to force bacteria as plants was in the first place or what your original claim was. Do you remember?

It's just that we established a long time ago that bacteria aren't relevant to scripture, so I wonder why we're still talking about it?

 

[timbo3]

Then it doesn't make any account for cyanobacteria. And the chronology given cannot be reconciled with a real-world understanding.

So, why make these scientifically innaccurate claims of "lush vegetation" that you cannot demonstrate without departing from it literally says?

How long do you believe is each "creative" day ?

 

[cupid dave]

How long do you believe is each "creative" day ?

When we understand that the word "day" Hebrew can mean an Age or a year or any suitable duration of time, it is clear that the facts of science support understanding these first seven days of God as the seven Eras:

 

[Huram Abi]

When we understand that the word "day" Hebrew can mean an Age or a year or any suitable duration of time, it is clear that the facts of science support understanding these first seven days of God as the seven Eras:

Force "day" to mean whatever you want.

It doesn't change the fact that there are NO "seven eras" that cosmology or geology acknowledges.

 

[timbo3]

When we understand that the word "day" Hebrew can mean an Age or a year or any suitable duration of time, it is clear that the facts of science support understanding these first seven days of God as the seven Eras:

The word day (Hebrew, yohm; Greek, he·me´ra) is not confined to just 24 hours in the Bible nor even among people, for we at times say in our "grandfather's day", meaning decades of time. The six "creative" days in which Jehovah God used to prepare the earth for human habitation at the end of the 6th "creative" day, were not 24 hour periods, but several thousand years long. At Genesis 2:4, all six "creative" days were now called just one "day".

Also, what the apostle Paul wrote to the Hebrew Christians provides support to the long length of several thousand years of a "creative" day. At Hebrews 3:7-11, Paul is quoting from Psalms 95:8-11 concerning the rebellious Israelites not ' entering into God's rest." Then at Hebrews 4:1, Paul now says that the Hebrew Christians have the opportunity of "entering into his rest", connecting with God's seventh "creative" day at Hebrews 4:4. Thus, over 4000 years later, God's "rest day" or the seventh "creative" day was still ongoing, being uncompleted.

In addition, all six of the previous "creative" days had closure, for each of them was completed with the expression: "And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a ------ day."(Gen 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31)

However, the seventh "creative" day was never closed, and hence still ongoing to it's completion. We are still within the seventh "creative" day or God's "rest day". It's closure is still yet future, till all that Jehovah has purposed for the earth has been fulfilled, which is to have the earth finished as a paradise with only "meek" ones living on it.(Matt 5:5; Ps 37:11, 29)

It is an inheritance from God for those who are "meek" or teachable by him. Psalms 115:16 says that "as regards the heavens, to Jehovah the heavens belong, but the earth he has given to the sons of men." Proverbs 2:21, 22 says that "the upright are the ones that will reside in the earth, and the blameless are the ones that will be left over in it. As regards the wicked, they will be cut off from the very earth; and as for the treacherous, they will be torn away from it."

 

[cupid dave]

The word day (Hebrew, yohm; Greek, he·me´ra) is not confined to just 24 hours in the Bible nor even among people, for we at times say in our "grandfather's day", meaning decades of time. The six "creative" days in which Jehovah God used to prepare the earth for human habitation at the end of the 6th "creative" day, were not 24 hour periods, but several thousand years long. At Genesis 2:4, all six "creative" days were now called just one "day".

Also, what the apostle Paul wrote to the Hebrew Christians provides support to the long length of several thousand years of a "creative" day. At Hebrews 3:7-11, Paul is quoting from Psalms 95:8-11 concerning the rebellious Israelites not ' entering into God's rest." Then at Hebrews 4:1, Paul now says that the Hebrew Christians have the opportunity of "entering into his rest", connecting with God's seventh "creative" day at Hebrews 4:4. Thus, over 4000 years later, God's "rest day" or the seventh "creative" day was still ongoing, being uncompleted.

In addition, all six of the previous "creative" days had closure, for each of them was completed with the expression: "And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a ------ day."(Gen 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31)

However, the seventh "creative" day was never closed, and hence still ongoing to it's completion. We are still within the seventh "creative" day or God's "rest day". It's closure is still yet future, till all that Jehovah has purposed for the earth has been fulfilled, which is to have the earth finished as a paradise with only "meek" ones living on it.(Matt 5:5; Ps 37:11, 29)

"

Thank u for the info and the resource to Paul on this.

Your observation concerning "day" seven is excellent.
I have copied your comments for nfurther reference since many people nin the science community are shocked when they read this kind of response to their bashing of Genesis.

"By there own words they shall be confounded."

 

[Huram Abi]

Except that Paul didn't write Hebrews.

 

[DanielGillan]

Except that Paul didn't write Hebrews.

........ as if it matters, it was accepted as written by Paul for a long time.
What the point is is that a day is not necessarily a mean solar time 24 hour period.
We can date the universe to within an accuracy of several hundred million years, and it is around 13.7 thousand million years old. This is real physical proof, we can date the Sun, and it just so happens to be about 2/6 of the age of the universe old. Which puts it right at the end of the 4th period of 6.
Lucky guess Moses ?

 

[Huram Abi]

It doesn't matter. There is no evidence to show that Paul wrote the anonymous Hebrews, whether people accepted it for a long time or not.

 

[ChrisManuel]

I agree, no evidence! I've always thought that he didn't write it because he gives no testimony and because he doesn't say he wrote it in all his other letters.

freedom project

 

[cupid dave]

........ as if it matters, it was accepted as written by Paul for a long time.
What the point is is that a day is not necessarily a mean solar time 24 hour period.
We can date the universe to within an accuracy of several hundred million years, and it is around 13.7 thousand million years old. This is real physical proof, we can date the Sun, and it just so happens to be about 2/6 of the age of the universe old. Which puts it right at the end of the 4th period of 6.
Lucky guess Moses ?

I have no idea how these Bible Bashers think whether Paul wrote Hebrews has to do with the uncanny support for Genesis from modwrn science.

The Big Bang Beginning is in stone now as the old Steady State Universe has bitten the dust.

The seven long durations before the circadian ryhtms of new life on earth started ticking off time with a Solar Clock was an uncanny insight passed down to us in a day long before men were ready to even entertain eras of millions of years.

And what about the delay, where God didn't say Let there be light right away???

Science now tells us that, indeed, there was a long Dark Cosmic Age after the Big Bang.