a-seeker Posted February 17, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 9 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 589 Content Per Day: 0.16 Reputation: 42 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/06/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted February 17, 2014 (edited) ABove Enoch claimed that God made the lights instantaneously, on the grounds that the light appeared on earth on the 4th day, for they could not serve the purpose of dating seasons for man if it would take their waves/particles to reach earth in a billion years. I am not going to argue against this because I think it is irrelevant to the purpose of Genesis; but I would like us to think clearly about what that means--I don't have very much science under my belt, so I am open to correction. Technically, for that split second (0.00000000000000000000001) light did not "travel" from their sources to us. God created both the source of light (stars), and the light waves at the same time--and these light waves/particles extended uniformly from earth to their distant sources. That is what instantaneous means. There is something....almost contradictory? about this scene. Can waves behave in such a manner? Again, after that split nano-second, light assumed the behavior we are all accustomed to....would that not mean that absolute darkness would follow for a billion years? Or did the speed of light slow down at such a rate that light always reached us even while reaching its current speed, which scientists say cannot be exceeded? Again, questions, but perhaps questions with a bite. clb Or it could be that the stars were created prior to that and on day 4 they were made visable. How in the world can I justify that from the text? Such a maneuver (which might not be your own) sounds desperate. clb It comes down to the word used for "made" in the original Hebrew, "asah" which has a multitude of meanings not unlike the English word "made". If I told you that I made my bed this morning, would you think I covered it with sheets or that I got the wood and screws and such and created it from scratch. The word "asah" carries a different connotation than the word "bara" which is to create out of nothing. There has to be a reason that God choose different words for different things in Genesis 1. So God created stars before day 4; but stars that did not shine (come on, are you serious LFA?). Then on day 4 he "made" those stars give light, and at an infinite speed.... "There has to be a reason.......". I don't disagree on the importance of language; but if I made such a claim, the obvious response would be, "who are you to presume what God has to do?" The text clearly says he "set the lights" in the sky.......it is not talking about the "effect of the sun and moon" but their actual materiality as sources of light; I should assume the same with the other luminaries. clb clb Edited February 17, 2014 by ConnorLiamBrown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LookingForAnswers Posted February 17, 2014 Group: Seeker Followers: 0 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,033 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 67 Days Won: 2 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted February 17, 2014 (edited) ABove Enoch claimed that God made the lights instantaneously, on the grounds that the light appeared on earth on the 4th day, for they could not serve the purpose of dating seasons for man if it would take their waves/particles to reach earth in a billion years. I am not going to argue against this because I think it is irrelevant to the purpose of Genesis; but I would like us to think clearly about what that means--I don't have very much science under my belt, so I am open to correction. Technically, for that split second (0.00000000000000000000001) light did not "travel" from their sources to us. God created both the source of light (stars), and the light waves at the same time--and these light waves/particles extended uniformly from earth to their distant sources. That is what instantaneous means. There is something....almost contradictory? about this scene. Can waves behave in such a manner? Again, after that split nano-second, light assumed the behavior we are all accustomed to....would that not mean that absolute darkness would follow for a billion years? Or did the speed of light slow down at such a rate that light always reached us even while reaching its current speed, which scientists say cannot be exceeded? Again, questions, but perhaps questions with a bite. clb Or it could be that the stars were created prior to that and on day 4 they were made visable. How in the world can I justify that from the text? Such a maneuver (which might not be your own) sounds desperate. clb It comes down to the word used for "made" in the original Hebrew, "asah" which has a multitude of meanings not unlike the English word "made". If I told you that I made my bed this morning, would you think I covered it with sheets or that I got the wood and screws and such and created it from scratch. The word "asah" carries a different connotation than the word "bara" which is to create out of nothing. There has to be a reason that God choose different words for different things in Genesis 1. So God created stars before day 4; but stars that did not shine (come on, are you serious LFA?). Then on day 4 he "made" those stars give light, and at an infinite speed.... "There has to be a reason.......". I don't disagree on the importance of language; but if I made such a claim, the obvious response would be, "who are you to presume what God has to do?" The text clearly says he "set the lights" in the sky.......it is not talking about the "effect of the sun and moon" but their actual materiality as sources of light; I should assume the same with the other luminaries. clb clb They were shining, but you will notice that in verse 7 and 8 God separated the waters and the waters above the earth God called "sky". A canopy of water vapor would make a very effective filter stopping most light from hitting the surface of the earth. As for you add part, none of the translations I use, KJV, RSV or ESV use the phrase "set the lights". Edited February 17, 2014 by LookingForAnswers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a-seeker Posted February 17, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 9 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 589 Content Per Day: 0.16 Reputation: 42 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/06/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted February 17, 2014 I'll be out for a good part of this evening.....Kids Soccer. I will answer your post either late tonight or tomorrow. Please look up the Definition of a "Strawman" Argument. Straw man arguments purposefully (perhaps unconsciously) misrepresent another's position in order to refute it; though what they have refuted is not really that persons argument. You misrepresent my position as denying that God was active in writing the Scriptures, enabling you to dismiss what I have to say as irreverent: but I never said, nor could it ever be inferred except by blatant misrepresenation, that God was inactive in the composition of the Scriptures. My second example may not be a straw man fallacy; rather its hypocritical. You accuse me of knowing the mind of God, when you do the same thing. And, even if I should not be using "straw man" correctly, to point that out is pedantic. My counter remains just as strong--we both believe God inspired Genesis. You think it is plain narrative, I am convinced it is not. The chief difference between us is that you appeal to science, I appeal to the text and the world in which it is written (and Biblical scholars, not scientists). have fun at soccer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a-seeker Posted February 17, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 9 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 589 Content Per Day: 0.16 Reputation: 42 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/06/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted February 17, 2014 ABove Enoch claimed that God made the lights instantaneously, on the grounds that the light appeared on earth on the 4th day, for they could not serve the purpose of dating seasons for man if it would take their waves/particles to reach earth in a billion years. I am not going to argue against this because I think it is irrelevant to the purpose of Genesis; but I would like us to think clearly about what that means--I don't have very much science under my belt, so I am open to correction. Technically, for that split second (0.00000000000000000000001) light did not "travel" from their sources to us. God created both the source of light (stars), and the light waves at the same time--and these light waves/particles extended uniformly from earth to their distant sources. That is what instantaneous means. There is something....almost contradictory? about this scene. Can waves behave in such a manner? Again, after that split nano-second, light assumed the behavior we are all accustomed to....would that not mean that absolute darkness would follow for a billion years? Or did the speed of light slow down at such a rate that light always reached us even while reaching its current speed, which scientists say cannot be exceeded? Again, questions, but perhaps questions with a bite. clb Or it could be that the stars were created prior to that and on day 4 they were made visable. How in the world can I justify that from the text? Such a maneuver (which might not be your own) sounds desperate. clb It comes down to the word used for "made" in the original Hebrew, "asah" which has a multitude of meanings not unlike the English word "made". If I told you that I made my bed this morning, would you think I covered it with sheets or that I got the wood and screws and such and created it from scratch. The word "asah" carries a different connotation than the word "bara" which is to create out of nothing. There has to be a reason that God choose different words for different things in Genesis 1. So God created stars before day 4; but stars that did not shine (come on, are you serious LFA?). Then on day 4 he "made" those stars give light, and at an infinite speed.... "There has to be a reason.......". I don't disagree on the importance of language; but if I made such a claim, the obvious response would be, "who are you to presume what God has to do?" The text clearly says he "set the lights" in the sky.......it is not talking about the "effect of the sun and moon" but their actual materiality as sources of light; I should assume the same with the other luminaries. clb clb They were shining, but you will notice that in verse 7 and 8 God separated the waters and the waters above the earth God called "sky". A canopy of water vapor would make a very effective filter stopping most light from hitting the surface of the earth. Before I put forth my rebuttal, do you actually believe that God meant all that? clb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 It comes down to the word used for "made" in the original Hebrew, "asah" which has a multitude of meanings not unlike the English word "made". If I told you that I made my bed this morning, would you think I covered it with sheets or that I got the wood and screws and such and created it from scratch. The word "asah" carries a different connotation than the word "bara" which is to create out of nothing. There has to be a reason that God choose different words for different things in Genesis 1. It has a several meanings, but asah has only ONE meaning per usage. Context determines what it means in a given verse of Scripture. In Genesis, the word "asah" is used to refer to something made with a purpose, and the stars and other luminaries are made with a purpose (signs and seasons). The translation of "asah" to mean "made" is consistent with the surrounding context. In addition, asah and bara are both used in relation to creation of man, man is 'made' and is also created, per Gen. 1: 26-27. So while asah has several meanings, those meanings cannot be arbitrarily assigned to the word at the will of the reader. The translation has to make sense within the context. The connotations bewtween the two words as used in Genesis 1 and 2 are not that different at all. The big difference is that bara is used of God exclusively in the OT. It is never used of people. We cannot "bara." BTW, bara doesn't mean "create out of nothing." It simply means, "create." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LookingForAnswers Posted February 17, 2014 Group: Seeker Followers: 0 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,033 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 67 Days Won: 2 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted February 17, 2014 ABove Enoch claimed that God made the lights instantaneously, on the grounds that the light appeared on earth on the 4th day, for they could not serve the purpose of dating seasons for man if it would take their waves/particles to reach earth in a billion years. I am not going to argue against this because I think it is irrelevant to the purpose of Genesis; but I would like us to think clearly about what that means--I don't have very much science under my belt, so I am open to correction. Technically, for that split second (0.00000000000000000000001) light did not "travel" from their sources to us. God created both the source of light (stars), and the light waves at the same time--and these light waves/particles extended uniformly from earth to their distant sources. That is what instantaneous means. There is something....almost contradictory? about this scene. Can waves behave in such a manner? Again, after that split nano-second, light assumed the behavior we are all accustomed to....would that not mean that absolute darkness would follow for a billion years? Or did the speed of light slow down at such a rate that light always reached us even while reaching its current speed, which scientists say cannot be exceeded? Again, questions, but perhaps questions with a bite. clb Or it could be that the stars were created prior to that and on day 4 they were made visable. How in the world can I justify that from the text? Such a maneuver (which might not be your own) sounds desperate. clb It comes down to the word used for "made" in the original Hebrew, "asah" which has a multitude of meanings not unlike the English word "made". If I told you that I made my bed this morning, would you think I covered it with sheets or that I got the wood and screws and such and created it from scratch. The word "asah" carries a different connotation than the word "bara" which is to create out of nothing. There has to be a reason that God choose different words for different things in Genesis 1. So God created stars before day 4; but stars that did not shine (come on, are you serious LFA?). Then on day 4 he "made" those stars give light, and at an infinite speed.... "There has to be a reason.......". I don't disagree on the importance of language; but if I made such a claim, the obvious response would be, "who are you to presume what God has to do?" The text clearly says he "set the lights" in the sky.......it is not talking about the "effect of the sun and moon" but their actual materiality as sources of light; I should assume the same with the other luminaries. clb clb They were shining, but you will notice that in verse 7 and 8 God separated the waters and the waters above the earth God called "sky". A canopy of water vapor would make a very effective filter stopping most light from hitting the surface of the earth. Before I put forth my rebuttal, do you actually believe that God meant all that? clb If I didn't believe it why would I have posted it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a-seeker Posted February 17, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 9 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 589 Content Per Day: 0.16 Reputation: 42 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/06/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted February 17, 2014 (edited) ABove Enoch claimed that God made the lights instantaneously, on the grounds that the light appeared on earth on the 4th day, for they could not serve the purpose of dating seasons for man if it would take their waves/particles to reach earth in a billion years. I am not going to argue against this because I think it is irrelevant to the purpose of Genesis; but I would like us to think clearly about what that means--I don't have very much science under my belt, so I am open to correction. Technically, for that split second (0.00000000000000000000001) light did not "travel" from their sources to us. God created both the source of light (stars), and the light waves at the same time--and these light waves/particles extended uniformly from earth to their distant sources. That is what instantaneous means. There is something....almost contradictory? about this scene. Can waves behave in such a manner? Again, after that split nano-second, light assumed the behavior we are all accustomed to....would that not mean that absolute darkness would follow for a billion years? Or did the speed of light slow down at such a rate that light always reached us even while reaching its current speed, which scientists say cannot be exceeded? Again, questions, but perhaps questions with a bite. clb Or it could be that the stars were created prior to that and on day 4 they were made visable. How in the world can I justify that from the text? Such a maneuver (which might not be your own) sounds desperate. clb It comes down to the word used for "made" in the original Hebrew, "asah" which has a multitude of meanings not unlike the English word "made". If I told you that I made my bed this morning, would you think I covered it with sheets or that I got the wood and screws and such and created it from scratch. The word "asah" carries a different connotation than the word "bara" which is to create out of nothing. There has to be a reason that God choose different words for different things in Genesis 1. So God created stars before day 4; but stars that did not shine (come on, are you serious LFA?). Then on day 4 he "made" those stars give light, and at an infinite speed.... "There has to be a reason.......". I don't disagree on the importance of language; but if I made such a claim, the obvious response would be, "who are you to presume what God has to do?" The text clearly says he "set the lights" in the sky.......it is not talking about the "effect of the sun and moon" but their actual materiality as sources of light; I should assume the same with the other luminaries. clb clb They were shining, but you will notice that in verse 7 and 8 God separated the waters and the waters above the earth God called "sky". A canopy of water vapor would make a very effective filter stopping most light from hitting the surface of the earth. Before I put forth my rebuttal, do you actually believe that God meant all that? clb If I didn't believe it why would I have posted it? ESV v. 17 "and God set them in the expanse of the heavens....". I see, I omitted "two great lights". That was the main point. God made the two great lights and set them in the sky; but the stars He had already made, but "most" (I quote you) could not penetrate the thick water vapor (could some???). And of course there is no mention of this thick water vapor dissipating. But I am already beginning to anticipate your whole frame of mind--probably it happened (though the text says nothing) when God created the sun; or after Genesis 2:4 when it began to rain...? Am I starting to get on the same wave-length?? clb Edited February 17, 2014 by ConnorLiamBrown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LookingForAnswers Posted February 17, 2014 Group: Seeker Followers: 0 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,033 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 67 Days Won: 2 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted February 17, 2014 ABove Enoch claimed that God made the lights instantaneously, on the grounds that the light appeared on earth on the 4th day, for they could not serve the purpose of dating seasons for man if it would take their waves/particles to reach earth in a billion years. I am not going to argue against this because I think it is irrelevant to the purpose of Genesis; but I would like us to think clearly about what that means--I don't have very much science under my belt, so I am open to correction. Technically, for that split second (0.00000000000000000000001) light did not "travel" from their sources to us. God created both the source of light (stars), and the light waves at the same time--and these light waves/particles extended uniformly from earth to their distant sources. That is what instantaneous means. There is something....almost contradictory? about this scene. Can waves behave in such a manner? Again, after that split nano-second, light assumed the behavior we are all accustomed to....would that not mean that absolute darkness would follow for a billion years? Or did the speed of light slow down at such a rate that light always reached us even while reaching its current speed, which scientists say cannot be exceeded? Again, questions, but perhaps questions with a bite. clb Or it could be that the stars were created prior to that and on day 4 they were made visable. How in the world can I justify that from the text? Such a maneuver (which might not be your own) sounds desperate. clb It comes down to the word used for "made" in the original Hebrew, "asah" which has a multitude of meanings not unlike the English word "made". If I told you that I made my bed this morning, would you think I covered it with sheets or that I got the wood and screws and such and created it from scratch. The word "asah" carries a different connotation than the word "bara" which is to create out of nothing. There has to be a reason that God choose different words for different things in Genesis 1. So God created stars before day 4; but stars that did not shine (come on, are you serious LFA?). Then on day 4 he "made" those stars give light, and at an infinite speed.... "There has to be a reason.......". I don't disagree on the importance of language; but if I made such a claim, the obvious response would be, "who are you to presume what God has to do?" The text clearly says he "set the lights" in the sky.......it is not talking about the "effect of the sun and moon" but their actual materiality as sources of light; I should assume the same with the other luminaries. clb clb They were shining, but you will notice that in verse 7 and 8 God separated the waters and the waters above the earth God called "sky". A canopy of water vapor would make a very effective filter stopping most light from hitting the surface of the earth. Before I put forth my rebuttal, do you actually believe that God meant all that? clb If I didn't believe it why would I have posted it? ESV v. 17 "and God set them in the expanse of the heavens....". my bad, for some odd reason I stopped at vs 16! LOL all three of them say it. Thank you for the correction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a-seeker Posted February 17, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 9 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 589 Content Per Day: 0.16 Reputation: 42 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/06/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted February 17, 2014 ABove Enoch claimed that God made the lights instantaneously, on the grounds that the light appeared on earth on the 4th day, for they could not serve the purpose of dating seasons for man if it would take their waves/particles to reach earth in a billion years. I am not going to argue against this because I think it is irrelevant to the purpose of Genesis; but I would like us to think clearly about what that means--I don't have very much science under my belt, so I am open to correction. Technically, for that split second (0.00000000000000000000001) light did not "travel" from their sources to us. God created both the source of light (stars), and the light waves at the same time--and these light waves/particles extended uniformly from earth to their distant sources. That is what instantaneous means. There is something....almost contradictory? about this scene. Can waves behave in such a manner? Again, after that split nano-second, light assumed the behavior we are all accustomed to....would that not mean that absolute darkness would follow for a billion years? Or did the speed of light slow down at such a rate that light always reached us even while reaching its current speed, which scientists say cannot be exceeded? Again, questions, but perhaps questions with a bite. clb Or it could be that the stars were created prior to that and on day 4 they were made visable. How in the world can I justify that from the text? Such a maneuver (which might not be your own) sounds desperate. clb It comes down to the word used for "made" in the original Hebrew, "asah" which has a multitude of meanings not unlike the English word "made". If I told you that I made my bed this morning, would you think I covered it with sheets or that I got the wood and screws and such and created it from scratch. The word "asah" carries a different connotation than the word "bara" which is to create out of nothing. There has to be a reason that God choose different words for different things in Genesis 1. So God created stars before day 4; but stars that did not shine (come on, are you serious LFA?). Then on day 4 he "made" those stars give light, and at an infinite speed.... "There has to be a reason.......". I don't disagree on the importance of language; but if I made such a claim, the obvious response would be, "who are you to presume what God has to do?" The text clearly says he "set the lights" in the sky.......it is not talking about the "effect of the sun and moon" but their actual materiality as sources of light; I should assume the same with the other luminaries. clb clb They were shining, but you will notice that in verse 7 and 8 God separated the waters and the waters above the earth God called "sky". A canopy of water vapor would make a very effective filter stopping most light from hitting the surface of the earth. Before I put forth my rebuttal, do you actually believe that God meant all that? clb If I didn't believe it why would I have posted it? ESV v. 17 "and God set them in the expanse of the heavens....". my bad, for some odd reason I stopped at vs 16! LOL all three of them say it. Thank you for the correction. No worries! Actually, I am flabbergasted. I have never received such a gracious and open-minded response from a person on this site who ultimately disagreed with me. I am speechless. God-bless LFA; truly an honest person! May you be an example to me. clb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted February 18, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Author Share Posted February 18, 2014 Enoch, Yet again my claim to have mastered the quoting mechanism is refuted....so I must paraphrase Are you saying that the question, "what genre is a particular text?" is NOT important? That to ask that question is already to get side-tracked? How is one to differentiate a parable from a psalm if they don't ask this question? I said above that Scripture has two authors who are not at odds. I made this clear by saying author/AUTHOR. The Great AUTHOR working through the human author. All accusations that I think Scripture uninspired really need to stop--if you must put up a strawman, put up a new one for a change, that one has taken its beating. And no. It is not quite simply an historical narrative. You need to spend less time obsessing over science and more time studying the culture behind Genesis and the text itself. Read some real scholars who don't care about science and have done a life-time work in ancient texts and languages. Do I presume to know the mind of God? In some instances, yes, for God has told me through His word. You claim the same thing: you claim it is CLEARLY an historical narrative--that is, that you have looked into the mind of God and presume to know what He intended when writing Genesis. Again, Sir, a strawman. Please put together a new one; that one is obliterated and it looks silly to see a man swinging at a bunch of straw scattered about. The other flood accounts bear too many similarities to God's flood--are you saying that they had the Genesis text and corrupted it? Demonstrate this!= ==================================================================================== Are you saying that the question, "what genre is a particular text?" is NOT important? I'm saying that Genesis is a Historical Narrative How is one to differentiate a parable from a psalm if they don't ask this question? Look @ the Text The Great AUTHOR working through the human author. The Author to the Writer. GOD is the AUTHOR of All Scripture All accusations that I think Scripture uninspired really need to stop-. If you must put up a strawman, put up a new one for a change, that one has taken its beating. I didn't accuse you of anything. You accused You. A Strawman is a conjured Argument made up so it can be easily defeated. For the past month, the whole basis of your argument has been the author....specifically Moses, and how Genesis was portrayed to the Culture (you're not the only one). So Strawman....... Not a chance. And no. It is not quite simply an historical narrative. Yes it is. Do you need another Lecture on it from Shiloh? You need to spend less time obsessing over science and more time studying the culture LOL...see what I mean "culture"? Unsolicited advice? How do you know I haven't been?..... Special Culture Mind Powers? Do I presume to know the mind of God? In some instances, yes, for God has told me through His word. You claim the same thing: you claim it is CLEARLY an historical narrative--that is, that you have looked into the mind of God and presume to know what He intended when writing Genesis. Again, Sir, a strawman. No No No sir. You said that GOD didn't care about the the Time issue.....he had "bigger fish to fry." Reading and Interpreting the WORD is in a WHOLE OTHER UNIVERSE than that. That Dog doesn't Hunt Here Sir....it's not even remotely close. And it's not a Strawman....your mixing up Genres. Please put together a new one; that one is obliterated and it looks silly to see a man swinging at a bunch of straw scattered about. What in the World? The other flood accounts bear too many similarities to God's flood--are you saying that they had the Genesis text and corrupted it? What in The World? Sir are you reading my posts? I'm saying the exact opposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts