They've found the "missing link"! Yeah, right!

[rcorlew]

Actually they are very much in harmony with each other, so I will explain.

Gen 2:5 When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up--for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground,
Gen 2:6 and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground--
Gen 2:7 then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.

Ok, we have more information given about how God created man, not a different account

Gen 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed.
Gen 2:9 And out of the ground the LORD God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Gen 2:10 A river flowed out of Eden to water the garden, and there it divided and became four rivers.
Gen 2:11 The name of the first is the Pishon. It is the one that flowed around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold.
Gen 2:12 And the gold of that land is good; bdellium and onyx stone are there.
Gen 2:13 The name of the second river is the Gihon. It is the one that flowed around the whole land of Cush.
Gen 2:14 And the name of the third river is the Tigris, which flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

God created a special garden for man called Eden, not a different account of the original creation or reordering, just more creation for a special cause.

Gen 2:15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it.
Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden,
Gen 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."
Gen 2:18 Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him."

Nothing contradictory here, just adding more information into the original account

Gen 2:19 Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.
Gen 2:20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him.

Ok Adam is working on God's instruction to name all the animals, but God sees he needs a mate.

Gen 2:21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.
Gen 2:22 And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.
Gen 2:23 Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."
Gen 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
Gen 2:25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

It ends with God finishing the work He promised in earlier verses to make Adam a helper/wife

Pretty simple stuff really.

 

[rcorlew]

Which bit?
2a: we all interpret the bible
or
2b: none of us take it literally

2b

Although I find the Bible needs surprisingly little interpretation when read literally, but that is not really this topic.

 

[herev]

I would have to disagree on point 2

on this, you'd be wrong

 

[herev]

Actually they are very much in harmony with each other, so I will explain.

Gen 2:5 When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up--for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground,
Gen 2:6 and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground--
Gen 2:7 then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.

Ok, we have more information given about how God created man, not a different account

Gen 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed.
Gen 2:9 And out of the ground the LORD God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Gen 2:10 A river flowed out of Eden to water the garden, and there it divided and became four rivers.
Gen 2:11 The name of the first is the Pishon. It is the one that flowed around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold.
Gen 2:12 And the gold of that land is good; bdellium and onyx stone are there.
Gen 2:13 The name of the second river is the Gihon. It is the one that flowed around the whole land of Cush.
Gen 2:14 And the name of the third river is the Tigris, which flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

God created a special garden for man called Eden, not a different account of the original creation or reordering, just more creation for a special cause.

Gen 2:15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it.
Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden,
Gen 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."
Gen 2:18 Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him."

Nothing contradictory here, just adding more information into the original account

Gen 2:19 Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.
Gen 2:20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him.

Ok Adam is working on God's instruction to name all the animals, but God sees he needs a mate.

Gen 2:21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.
Gen 2:22 And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.
Gen 2:23 Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."
Gen 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
Gen 2:25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

It ends with God finishing the work He promised in earlier verses to make Adam a helper/wife

Pretty simple stuff really.

this is called harmonizing. It is done BECAUSE one approaches the texts believing their can BE no contradiction, thus one searches for a way to harmonize them---but harmonizing IS a form of interpretation--which you say you don't do
approaching the text with a bias guiding you is called eisogesis--not good form for deciphering the meaning of the text

 

[rcorlew]

this is called harmonizing. It is done BECAUSE one approaches the texts believing their can BE no contradiction, thus one searches for a way to harmonize them---but harmonizing IS a form of interpretation--which you say you don't do
approaching the text with a bias guiding you is called eisogesis--not good form for deciphering the meaning of the text

How could that be interpretation?

It contains key words that leave no contradiction:

Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast

That is what I guess what you are having a problem with correct?

 

[LightHorseman]

Even with your point, which is valid I add, the rate of expansion from point zero would be beyond the speed of light 2.3/2 = 1.15, but that is incorrect in the distance star A travels from point zero must be computable with the age/size equation, the actual rate of acceleration star A has from star B is @ 6 times the speed of light.

The diameter of the universe is believed to be 93 billion light years across 93/2 = 46.5 billion light years

46.5/13.7 = 3.39

So while star A is moving away from star B at roughly 6 times the speed of light.

Something has to be wrong here, how can star A or star B go that fast?

I told you its a hard concept...

The thing to remember is that the stars relative velocity is independant of each other... no information is passing between them, they are, effectively, unable to effect each other in any way, thus it is possible for them to travel faster than the speed of light in relation to each other, but only because they can no longer effect each other

 

[rcorlew]

I told you its a hard concept...

The thing to remember is that the stars relative velocity is independant of each other... no information is passing between them, they are, effectively, unable to effect each other in any way, thus it is possible for them to travel faster than the speed of light in relation to each other, but only because they can no longer effect each other

Maybe I was not clear, star A is accelerating 3 times the speed of light in regards to its own original position, regardless of its relative acceleration from star B.

 

[ebia]

2b

No-one can take everything literally, and no-one takes nothing literally.

Although I find the Bible needs surprisingly little interpretation when read literally, but that is not really this topic.

When one thinks one doesn't need to interpret a text it not because one isn't interpreting, but because one isn't aware that one is interpreting. And someone who is aware of what they are doing is much more likely to do a careful and considered job of it than someone who is not.

"The bible nees surprisingly little interpretation ..." really translates as "I'm not even aware of, let alone critically examining, what I'm doing".

 

[rcorlew]

No-one can take everything literally, and no-one takes nothing literally.


When one thinks one doesn't need to interpret a text it not because one isn't interpreting, but because one isn't aware that one is interpreting. And someone who is aware of what they are doing is much more likely to do a careful and considered job of it than someone who is not.

"The bible nees surprisingly little interpretation ..." really translates as "I'm not even aware of, let alone critically examining, what I'm doing".

I do not really know how to respond to that so I will with hold comments out of respect of a fellow Christian.

 

[LightHorseman]

Maybe I was not clear, star A is accelerating 3 times the speed of light in regards to its own original position, regardless of its relative acceleration from star B.

Yep... thats possible... because star A would thus be unable to transmit information, thus, unable to have any sort of causal effect on its original position.

However, the whole idea of "starting position", suggests you aren't quite thinking about space correctly... space has no underlying grid of location... "here" is an entirely relative concept, so we can say an object has moved x distance from point Y in Z time, but that does not necesarily mean that point Y is x distance away from the object now.

Space is REALLY fluid... not to mention curved and relative. I know these are not easy concepts

*edited to add* I think I understand your meaning, thus I have answered the question as best I could, although ebia's point is perfectly valid, your use of terms is a little haphazard

 

[ebia]

Maybe I was not clear, star A is accelerating 3 times the speed of light in regards to its own original position, regardless of its relative acceleration from star B.

I'm going to pick this one up as a representative example of the huge quantity of language in this thread that is sloppy to the point of making much of what is said completely meaningless.

An acceletion cannot be 3 times a speed. Acceleration is rate-of-change-of-velocity. Speed is velocity without direction, ie just the magnitude. THEY ARE DIFFERENT THINGS IN DIFFERENT UNITS - you can't compare a speed (or velocity) and an acceleration. This:

star A is accelerating 3 times the speed of light
​

is meaningless gibberish. It's like saying my ruler is twice as long as tomorrow.

 

[rcorlew]

I'm going to pick this one up as a representative example of the huge quantity of language in this thread that is sloppy to the point of making much of what is said completely meaningless.

An acceletion cannot be 3 times a speed. Acceleration is rate-of-change-of-velocity. Speed is velocity without direction, ie just the magnitude. THEY ARE DIFFERENT THINGS IN DIFFERENT UNITS - you can't compare a speed (or velocity) and an acceleration. This:

star A is accelerating 3 times the speed of light
​

is meaningless gibberish. It's like saying my ruler is twice as long as tomorrow.

No actually the rate of universal expansion is increasing, so while the star would have started out with zero velocity, and is now at a distance that would require its velocity to have been 3 times the speed of light to achieve its current position while having undergone two separate acceleration eras at which time the acceleration that was already being experienced was sped up all the while the rate of expansion continues to increase, how else would you express that?

So the matter has continually increased in velocity while undergoing periods of increased increase to the increase, but yet is not observable to have traveled beyond the speed of light while the distance it traveled would require to surpass that speed by a factor of 3.

 

[LightHorseman]

No actually the rate of universal expansion is increasing, so while the star would have started out with zero velocity, and is now at a distance that would require its velocity to have been 3 times the speed of light to achieve its current position while having undergone two separate acceleration eras at which time the acceleration that was already being experienced was sped up all the while the rate of expansion continues to increase, how else would you express that?

So the matter has continually increased in velocity while undergoing periods of increased increase to the increase, but yet is not observable to have traveled beyond the speed of light while the distance it traveled would require to surpass that speed by a factor of 3.

No. Because you can never observe an object traveling faster than the speed of light. If an object IS traveling away from you at the speed of light or greater (*which is possible, remember our expanding baloon) it is NOT possible for you to observe it travelling away from you at >C

 

[rcorlew]

No. Because you can never observe an object traveling faster than the speed of light. If an object IS traveling away from you at the speed of light or greater (*which is possible, remember our expanding baloon) it is NOT possible for you to observe it travelling away from you at >C

So then are you saying that the only way this is possible is by curving space and time to give the illusion of the velocity required?

 

[ebia]

No actually the rate of universal expansion is increasing, so while the star would have started out with zero velocity, and is now at a distance that would require its velocity to have been 3 times the speed of light to achieve its current position while having undergone two separate acceleration eras at which time the acceleration that was already being experienced was sped up all the while the rate of expansion continues to increase, how else would you express that?

That's your problem - you cannot express an accelation as a speed any more than you can express the length of tomorrow in inches. It's meaningless. Speed/velocity is in ms^-1 or equivalent. Accelaration is in ms^-2 or equivalent. Expressing an accelation as 3 times a speed just says "I've no idea what I'm talking about". Acceleration is rate of change of velocity and half the time you seem to use it just to mean a changing velocity.

And, as I've said, this is just one instance. I'm no astro-physicist, but a good proportion of what you've said about stars, light, distance over the last few posts is mathematically gibbersish.

 

[rcorlew]

That's your problem - you cannot express an accelation as a speed any more than you can express the length of tomorrow in inches. It's meaningless. Speed/velocity is in ms^-1 or equivalent. Accelaration is in ms^-2 or equivalent. Expressing an accelation as 3 times a speed just says "I've no idea what I'm talking about". Acceleration is rate of change of velocity and half the time you seem to use it just to mean a changing velocity.

And, as I've said, this is just one instance. I'm no astro-physicist, but a good proportion of what you've said about stars, light, distance over the last few posts is mathematically gibbersish.

No actually ebia, as I have shown the speed of the light could not have been constant because of the inconsistent rate of the actual expansion meaning that the light from the farthest star would have to vary because the velocity of that star would vary itself, and that star itself would have to be accelerating at a rate 3 times the speed of the light it has produced which is not constant.

 

[praisejahupeople]

Of course.

But then, I believe he speaks to us far more directly through his Creation, rather than through an arguably inspired version of events,

How is that possible?If someone uses a secretary and dictates events that transpired,thats the most accurate way of relaying information.

originally passed down orally by a non scientific people for who knows how many generations, before being subject to the vagueries of translation and transcription errors before eventually coming to us.

You seriously underestimate the ancient israelites ability to firstly relay information orally,and secondly keep records.They were meticulous.This is why you can trace Jesus earthly geneology.

If I were to try to explain the Creation of the universe to people who didn't unbderstand basic physics principles like gravity and electron... then I may very well simplify things to similar terms to those found in Genesis.

Thats not the issue.Mans apparent descend from primates isnt the same as God created the heavens.Its only an issue if you think they werent mentally able to cope with a concept that God formed man from beasts,or he formed man from clay.Thats not rocket science.What does the account say? He formed Adam from a beast? or he formed him directly from clay?

This isn't a matter of "not believing what God says", its a matter of being advanced enough to understand Him even better now that we have a greater degree of maturity and scientific knowledge.

Your scientific knowledge regarding primate to man firstly is false,secondly has nothing to do with the creation of the heavens and thirdly contradicts a straight forward account.

When you try to explain something to a 5 year old, do you use the same language and terms as you would explaining the same thing to a 15 year old? How about a 30 year old? Of course not. This does not, however, mean you have ever been "lying" to the child... merely that you are adjusting the information to be understoof by the child at their current level. In terms of scientific knowledge, in this analogy, the ancient Hebrews are the 5 year olds, and modern scientific post industrial society are the 15 year olds.

Covered already.Seems our superior knowledge doesnt stop one from repeating a point.

I am quite sure that when science advances twice as far again, they will look back on our knowledge and ideas as quaint and simplistic, much as a 30 year old regards a 15 year old.

I prefer to look at it that some things hold true no matter how old they are.

 

[LightHorseman]

So then are you saying that the only way this is possible is by curving space and time to give the illusion of the velocity required?

Huh?

No, not in the least. Curvature of space time is a function of mass. What we are discussing is utterly different, to do with the relative velocities of non-causal objects

 

[LightHorseman]

No actually ebia, as I have shown the speed of the light could not have been constant because of the inconsistent rate of the actual expansion meaning that the light from the farthest star would have to vary because the velocity of that star would vary itself, and that star itself would have to be accelerating at a rate 3 times the speed of the light it has produced which is not constant.

No. You havn't shown this at all.

 

[praisejahupeople]

you asked me to point out where you are wrong regarding your view that Genesis is a myth.However apart from disputing the age of the earth(i actually agree lol),and some sort of vague hand waving towards common descent,you havent made any to refute apart from asserting that the ancient hebrews werent mentally competent to cope with the awe inspiring truth that God formed man by the process of common descent.

The 1st point doesnt hold up when examined.

Want to keep going?