Genesis was right?!

[ADTClone]

You mean like this?

John 12:28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.

Yet the people "misinterpreted" it as:

John 12:29 The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him.

If you think God shouting from the sky that He is God is going to change minds around here, you don't know the book of Revelation.

QV please:

Uhh...maybe you made a mistake with that example or maybe you are being dishonest, but those two verses are different. One is verse 28 and one is verse 29. And the popular versions of the Bible I checked have both of those verses, intact, separated one after another.

Really hope that wasn't dishonesty...That's the 9th commandment there.

 

[juvenissun]

Hmmm, good question, I've never tried *takes a moment to research big bang theory* ....

Okay... "Subatomic".

Attempting to witness it though would have been futile because there would be no light. Protons didn't begin to form until after the expansion of the singularity and it makes me wonder for how long were they active enough to be visible. Although it might have looked something like a cloud in every variety of color imaginable... or just plain white since protons at their most active are white or perhaps starting at white and shifting in all frequencies of the electromagnetic color spectrum until they vanished and all was dark or maybe they weren't active enough to be visible and it was just dark until the stars began to form. I don't know.

So there's a correction to the op but since I still don't know enough about it I'll save that until I do.

That is why the word "light" shows up on verse 3. And it should not be visible light yet.

 

[Styx87]

That is why the word "light" shows up on verse 3. And it should not be visible light yet.

But again, I'm more inclined to think that the verse is talking about the light that is used to separate night and day and that would need a sun. Not all light in general.

 

[Tiberius]

What reality?

Why doesn't it surprise me that you are unfamiliar with reality?

 

[Tiberius]

The "water" in verse 2 does not mean H2O.

H2O appeared in verse 6. But ocean begins at verse 9.

Then what does the term "water" mean if not H2O?

 

[juvenissun]

But again, I'm more inclined to think that the verse is talking about the light that is used to separate night and day and that would need a sun. Not all light in general.

You could. But you will create a conflict with what happens on Day 4. So, logically, you should not. And there are reasons not to.

Day and night means light and dark. If you have light, then there will be dark. Long before our sun, there are light and dark almost from the beginning.

You may take the dark as shadow (no light). Or, you may take it as something which is naturally "dark", such as the dark matter.

 

[juvenissun]

Then what does the term "water" mean if not H2O?

Liquid.

 

[Styx87]

You could. But you will create a conflict with what happens on Day 4. So, logically, you should not. And there are reasons not to.

Day and night means light and dark. If you have light, then there will be dark. Long before our sun, there are light and dark almost from the beginning.

You may take the dark as shadow (no light). Or, you may take it as something which is naturally "dark", such as the dark matter.

No, that's wrong. After the expansion of the singularity there might be light particles but there's nothing to excite them into being active and visible for a really long time... not until there are stars. Even then, even if they are visible after the expansion they would have began to cool very rapidly and become inert very very quickly such that they would not have been visible for very long. Additionally stars came before planets, the sun came before our Earth, dry land came before seas and oceans, fish came before wheat, grain trees and so on. Even the moon comes in before life and you can't have the passage of days and night without a sun. Therefor you can't take a literal reading of the bible logically because it doesn't line up with reality. Logically there's a conflict between what really happened and what the bible says.

 

[Styx87]

Liquid.

I think you're guessing. Actually I know you're guessing because the Hebrew had a word for Liquid "Nozel" (נוזל&#1497. See how it's different from water "mayim" (מי&#1501. The word they used here was "water" and they meant "Water".

It's very probable that the authors believed that above the sky was actual liquid primordial water and it's also likely that the reason they thought that is because the sky was blue just like the ocean. If that's what they believed then they probably attributed that to why it rained and so on. Which can even be partially confirmed by the flood account.

 

[Tiberius]

Liquid.

Describe this liquid.

 

[juvenissun]

Describe this liquid.

I don't know enough to do that.
It is the status of material, say, one hour after the Bib Bang.

 

[juvenissun]

No, that's wrong. After the expansion of the singularity there might be light particles but there's nothing to excite them into being active and visible for a really long time... not until there are stars. Even then, even if they are visible after the expansion they would have began to cool very rapidly and become inert very very quickly such that they would not have been visible for very long. Additionally stars came before planets, the sun came before our Earth, dry land came before seas and oceans, fish came before wheat, grain trees and so on. Even the moon comes in before life and you can't have the passage of days and night without a sun. Therefor you can't take a literal reading of the bible logically because it doesn't line up with reality. Logically there's a conflict between what really happened and what the bible says.

How do you know that?

 

[juvenissun]

I think you're guessing. Actually I know you're guessing because the Hebrew had a word for Liquid "Nozel" (נוזל&#1497. See how it's different from water "mayim" (מי&#1501. The word they used here was "water" and they meant "Water".

It's very probable that the authors believed that above the sky was actual liquid primordial water and it's also likely that the reason they thought that is because the sky was blue just like the ocean. If that's what they believed then they probably attributed that to why it rained and so on. Which can even be partially confirmed by the flood account.

Does this word show in the Pentateuch?

 

[Tiberius]

I don't know enough to do that.
It is the status of material, say, one hour after the Bib Bang.

So you're guessing.

 

[Styx87]

How do you know that?

Because it's the gravitational pull of matter into the center of Molecular Clouds that causes conservation of angular momentum forcing the MC into a disc shape (which ironically sets the plane in which planets will orbit). At the center of the mass when pressure and temperature become high enough Hydrogen and Helium will begin fusion and ignite a star... at this point the development of the masses surrounding the star... even when it's categorized as a T Turi Star (or proto star as in not a star yet) aren't developed enough to be called planets... Planetoids or Proto Planets maybe but surly not suitable for life and definitely not suitable for Wheat or Grain or Trees... Not without a Sun. The sun came first and after that planets... and believe it or not a lot more than we have today.

 

[mzungu]

Genesis got it right What The Bible Got Wrong: A Flat Earth Part 1 - YouTube

 

[juvenissun]

So you're guessing.

I take reference from what physicists told me.

 

[juvenissun]

Because it's the gravitational pull of matter into the center of Molecular Clouds that causes conservation of angular momentum forcing the MC into a disc shape (which ironically sets the plane in which planets will orbit). At the center of the mass when pressure and temperature become high enough Hydrogen and Helium will begin fusion and ignite a star... at this point the development of the masses surrounding the star... even when it's categorized as a T Turi Star (or proto star as in not a star yet) aren't developed enough to be called planets... Planetoids or Proto Planets maybe but surly not suitable for life and definitely not suitable for Wheat or Grain or Trees... Not without a Sun. The sun came first and after that planets... and believe it or not a lot more than we have today.

Why can't the earth be formed before the sun starts to react? They are working under the same principle. The earth would take much less material, and it does not have to work up from hydrogen.

 

[Styx87]

Why can't the earth be formed before the sun starts to react? They are working under the same principle. The earth would take much less material, and it does not have to work up from hydrogen.

Because the Atoms are heavier and it takes longer for them to accrete. As I stated, the sun's gravity had already been instituted. No matter where you put the development of the masses the sun's gravity predates the rest. Even if you name the earliest clump of matter "Earth" before it's a planet the point is it's still in gravitational orbit around the sun.

 

[juvenissun]

Because the Atoms are heavier and it takes longer for them to accrete. As I stated, the sun's gravity had already been instituted. No matter where you put the development of the masses the sun's gravity predates the rest. Even if you name the earliest clump of matter "Earth" before it's a planet the point is it's still in gravitational orbit around the sun.

The formation of earth did not start with atom. It started with space dust. The dust and debris are much bigger and are much easier to make aggregates by gravity attraction. Before the hydrogen atoms started to form a spherical sun, meteorites, moons and planets might have already been formed. The sun might be the last to form in the solar system.