Genesis chapter one

[lithium.]

Originally posted by Project 86
seesaw, if your talking about space and matter, yes he created that obviously first since you can't have matter if you don't have space.

Then that's the universe then why does it say the created the universe on the 6 day it doesn't make sence. You have to create the universe the galaxy than earth than life.

 

[Matthew]

LOL that doesn't change the fact that you can't create the earth and adam and eve with out creating the universe on the first day. The bible imo needs to be worked on so it can make sence.

I was referring to the Hebrew phrase 'heavens and earth' when I said universe. And this happens, according to the Hebrew conception, to include everything that does exist. So all my statement said is this:

The Hebrew book of Genesis claims that 'Everything that exists was created in 6 24-hour days.'

 

[Matthew]

You have to create the universe the galaxy than earth than life.

You do? Really. Assume for a second that God exists and is all powerful. Who is to say that he can't create space/matter/time first, then the earth, then life, then stars. Or even in some other order.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

seesaw, when it's said he created the universe in 6 days that means everything. I could say I created a car in 6 days. Does that mean I took 6 days to do the body of the car? No I made the body the first day, put in the engine the 2nd day, the seats the 3rd day etc.

 

[Matthew]

Sorry, John. I have had to research this question extensively. The word here is not "yom" but "beyom".  This does indicate a very short time, within the span of a 24 hour day down to an instant.  For instance, in Gen 2:17 "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it; for in the day (beyom) that you eat thereof you shall surely die."

beyom is yom with the prefix be. This prefix changes the meaning of yom so that it means 'when'. This can't be used as an example of yom with a number being used as long period of time because there is no number!

In all the other instances of "beyom", it means a period of a day or less.  It is inconsistent to try to make "beyom" mean an entire time period in Genesis 2:4.

According to the context, that is what it means. But it won't give any support for long time periods in Genesis 1.

 

[lithium.]

Well if god is so powerful that he can create the universe in six days why doesn't he come to earth himself and talk to everyone on earth face to face. There is only a book that we are suppose to take as truth without any evidence backing it up. I know if I was god I would come to earth and talk to everyone face to face.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by JohnR7 The data on the spindown rate of the earth comes from NASA. It is mostly caused by the friction of the tide from the Ocean. We know the tide is caused from the pull of gravity from the moon and the sun.

If you take the known spindown rate and project it back about 4.5 billion years, then a day would be 1/ 100,000 of a second long.

The spindown rate you used comes from Dr. Walter Brown.  The actual rate is 0.0005 seconds per year per year.  Take that back 4.6 billion years and you get a day that is 14 hours long.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/rotate.html


I believe the universe from beginning to end, moves in one steady consistant flow or swirl. Although Genesis chapter one says in creation there were six distinct ages or era's of time.

If the Bible had wanted to say "ages" it wouldn't have tied the time to "morning" and "evening" even during the first 3 days when there was no sun to give morning and evening.  The literalists have it correct here; the authors did intend to have 24 hour days.   But their intention was not to give a scientific account of creation, but to give a theological justification for monotheism.

 Science says the same thing. They agree with each other on the general order of the events.

Uh, no.  Plants before a sun?  Whales before reptiles?  Earth befor stars?  Why do you want to make a scientific document out of a theological document. Especially one the authors stuck in the Babylonian cosmology?

I believe a lot of what we are learning in the area of science compliments the Bible, it does not conflict with it.

What we have learned from science certainly conflicts with a literal interpretation of the Bible.  Your attempt to try to use language to change the Bible so that it fits with science silly.  It humiliates the Bible.[/B][/QUOTE]

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

"Uh, no. Plants before a sun? Whales before reptiles? Earth befor stars? Why do you want to make a scientific document out of a theological document. Especially one the authors stuck in the Babylonian cosmology?"

God created light the first day. Plants only need light, the sun isn't the only way for a plant to survive.

"What we have learned from science certainly conflicts with a literal interpretation of the Bible. " (took out 2nd half of statement, which I actually agree with) 

You talk the talk but can't show any good examples.

I will agree with you though on the following comment you made.

"If the Bible had wanted to say "ages" it wouldn't have tied the time to "morning" and "evening" even during the first 3 days when there was no sun to give morning and evening."

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

"why doesn't he come to earth himself and talk to everyone on earth face to face."

Good question seesaw. I could think of a few reasons but I think there are more qualifed people that can give a better answer at this time to you then what I can.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by JohnR7
Yes, there was a beginning and a end to each of the six distinct periods of time. ... The end of one day, is the beginning of the next day.

This is all very semantically clever, but from the Hebrew translation site you praised, Genesis 1:6:

"And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day."

Not one "period". Not one "age". But a morning and an evening as we see now, to denote a day like we have now: 24 hours.  IOW, the authors went out of their way to tie a time period that could be indefinite to the definite 24 hour day.

I thought Biblical literalists weren't supposed to try to put their own interpretation into God's words?

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Anthony
But Moses wasn't at the "creation" so he had to write about something which he knew nothing about, and had no first hand knowledge. He simply put into writing what was spoken to him, using a writing style and vocabulary which is a fraction of what we have today.

Are you saying, Anthony, that we should not take the account in Genesis 1 literally?

This seems a variant on the idea that God told the people of the time what they could understand, but never intended that they should take it literally or use it over the evidence God left in Creation.  Is that what you are doing?

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Matthew
beyom is yom with the prefix be. This prefix changes the meaning of yom so that it means 'when'. This can't be used as an example of yom with a number being used as long period of time because there is no number!




According to the context, that is what it means. But it won't give any support for long time periods in Genesis 1.

Frist, the prefix in all Hebrew to English dictionaries I consulted seen means "in the".  It does not convert "yom" to a general "when".  There is a separate Hebrew word for "when". 

Matthew, I'm afraid you lost the context.  John was not using it for Genesis 1, but for Genesis 2:4. The problem for John and all Biblical literalists is that in Genesis 2:4 God creates the universe within a day when Genesis 1 just got done telling us it was 6 days.  Therefore the literalists have to try to change the meaning somehow.  John tried to do it by making "in the day" refer to the entire 6 "days" (indefinite periods to John).

My point is that the word in Genesis 2:4 is not "yom" as claimed by John, but "beyom".  The prefix means "in the" and won't allow the general extension of the word to the entire 6-day period depicted in Genesis 1.  We have 2 separate creation stories from 2 separate traditions in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.

 

[Anthony]

Genesis is the conveying of nonfictional information, by someone who was not at the scene. Other than that, I am limited in what I can conclude. Any speculation beyond that on my part, is entertainment.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by seesaw
Well if god is so powerful that he can create the universe in six days why doesn't he come to earth himself and talk to everyone on earth face to face. There is only a book that we are suppose to take as truth without any evidence backing it up. I know if I was god I would come to earth and talk to everyone face to face.

According to many theists, God does talk to them.  That God hasn't spoken to either you or I can be explained by several hypotheses other than God doesn't exist.

Thomas Aquinas wrote about the logical "proofs" of God.  After he had finished the book he had a personal experience that he was sure was of God and made all those logical arguments irrelevant, in his opinion.

So, millions of people through the centuries have had very convincing evidence that God exists.  As just one explanation why God hasn't made it obvious to everyone: perhaps God doesn't care if we are all convinced.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Anthony
Genesis is the conveying of nonfictional information, by someone who was not at the scene. Other than that, I am limited in what I can conclude. Any speculation beyond that on my part, is entertainment.

That was rather vague, Anthony. Which information is nonfictional? That God created?  That God created in 6 days?  That entities -- stars, planets, animals, people -- appeared instantaneously in their present form?

You admit that the author(s) of Genesis 1 were not there.  Therefore just how much of Genesis 1 is completely accurate? 

Or let me reduce that to the crucial issue: How much of Genesis 1 has to be nonfictional for Judeo-Christianity to be accurate?  Does it all have to be nonfictional?

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by lucaspa
As just one explanation why God hasn't made it obvious to everyone: perhaps God doesn't care if we are all convinced.

Or perhaps God is only interested in those who are interested in finding Him. It is very easy to believe there is a God; those are the people God is interested in. Those who feel there is no God, he says fine, "have it your way". But don't say we didn't tell you so. Nobody is twisting arms here.

 

[aaron]

isn't there a parable in the Bible when the shepard leaves 99 sheep to find the lost ONE sheep. So God does care for everyone

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Project 86 "Uh, no. Plants before a sun? Whales before reptiles? Earth befor stars? Why do you want to make a scientific document out of a theological document. Especially one the authors stuck in the Babylonian cosmology?"

God created light the first day. Plants only need light, the sun isn't the only way for a plant to survive.

How much light does the earth get without the sun?  Not enough to keep plants alive, right?  How about heat?  Think how cold it gets in the Arctic and Antarctic with those long nights.

So, where in the text does it give you a hint that the earth received more light in the absence of the sun than it does now? Or heat?

"What we have learned from science certainly conflicts with a literal interpretation of the Bible. "


You talk the talk but can't show any good examples.

Before I give the examples, let's look at your final comment.

I will agree with you though on the following comment you made.

"If the Bible had wanted to say "ages" it wouldn't have tied the time to "morning" and "evening" even during the first 3 days when there was no sun to give morning and evening."

So, since you agree we are dealing with 24 hour days if we take the literal interpretation, let's get back to those examples of science contradicting a literal interpretation.

1. All organisms are contemporary with a literal interpretation. Yet the fossil record clearly shows that organisms were not contemporary.  Titanotheres didn't live with us and didn't live with the dinosaurs, either, as just one example.

2. Birds were not around before reptiles. Instead, reptiles preceded birds, contrary to verses 21-24. 

3. There are many stars out there older than earth. Yet earth is supposed to precede them. 

4. We have a series of transitional fossil individuals linking H. sapiens to A. afarensis through H. erectus and H. habilis.  Therefore humans were not spoken into existence in their present form as in Genesis 1 or formed from dust in their present form as in Genesis 2.

Would you like me to go on? Now remember, I'm only talking about a literal interpretation.  If you look at Genesis as a theological document, science loses the ability to contradict it.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Anthony
Or perhaps God is only interested in those who are interested in finding Him. It is very easy to believe there is a God; those are the people God is interested in. Those who feel there is no God, he says fine, "have it your way". But don't say we didn't tell you so. Nobody is twisting arms here.

That's another possible hypothesis.  However, that does contradict the parable about the shepherd, as Aaron pointed out to you.  Also, remember that God stuck with the Hebrew people even when they didn't worship Him.

Other possible hypotheses are:

You need a "deity detecting module" in your brain, and some people simply don't have it.

God does speak to everyone. Some people simply don't recognize it for what it is. 

In Genesis 1, God doesn't create people for any reason other than it is "good".  Not for worship, not for companionship, not for anything other than for themselves.  So God doesn't have a reason to speak to everyone.

Of course, there is also the hypothesis that God doesn't exist and theists are simply mistaken.

BTW, are you going to take a stab at my questions about what is nonfictional and what is fictional in Genesis 1 or 2?

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by Anthony
Or perhaps God is only interested in those who are interested in finding Him. It is very easy to believe there is a God; those are the people God is interested in. Those who feel there is no God, he says fine, "have it your way". But don't say we didn't tell you so. Nobody is twisting arms here.

Yeah ok if you are not christian god doesn't care so you will just goto hell. So i guess billions of people are going to goto hell. The christian and muslims gods are just so nice.