Genesis 1: the obvious reading??

[MorningGlory]

I know this comes up fairly often but, please, can y'all QUOTE the part of a post you're      responding to instead of reposting the entire long, long text?  I see it over and over again; quoting 75 lines of text and responding to one tiny segment with a one-liner just makes it harder to read through a thread.  Once you hit the 'Quote' button you can delete everything except what you want to address.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

I didn't claim that anything happened outside the laws of nature or physics.   I said that God is not bound by what scientists say is possible.

I know of no single "miracle" that went outside of the laws of physics an nature.

Water into wine?

Giving sight to the blind?

Raising the dead?

Parting the Red Sea?

The Creation Museum, Answers in Genesis does everything it can to explain Genesis 1 within scientific parameters.

What you are explaining here is that Genesis 1 took place via what we call "miracles".

Thus, according to you, Ken Hamm is wrong, and all creationists whoever tried to make scientific inquiry into the past fit into the Genesis 1 account because not a single miracle has ever been able to fit with science.

 

Yeah, cause all creationists are slaves to Ken Ham, right???   Please...

 

Try actually reading what I said.  I am differentiating between what scientists (little, fallible sinful men) say is possible, and "science."   I am saying that "science" is much bigger than what scientists imagine in their little, limited naturalistic minds.

Because we think with scientific mindsets. Telling history in our culture and way of thinking is about relaying facts for facts' sake. Was the Bible written with "facts for facts' sake in mind"?

 

In literary analysis, we determine a historical narrative based on the structure of the text, not simply "facts for fact's sake" as you put it.

 

If historical narratives were nothing more than a recollection of facts for fact's sake, then  the poem about Paul Revere's famous midnight ride should be included as a historical narrative and not has poetry.  

[Enoch2021]

 

More accurately, the Bible reveals that God isn't bound by what scientists claim is or is not possible.

Then YEC'ers should stop trying to make Genesis 1 fit with science or believable scientifically if it all happened outside of our current "laws of nature" and "laws of physics".

 

I also think that you seem to be unable to make the distinction between a scientific narrative and an historical narrative.  Your responses seem to blur lines between the two.

 

In our culture, "historical narrative" is presented "scientifically"

 

 

 

=======================================================================================================

 

 

 

**  Bolding/Font/Colors meant for emphasis "No emotional Connotations Whatsoever **

 

Then YEC'ers should stop trying to make Genesis 1 fit with science or believable scientifically if it all happened outside of our current "laws of nature" and "laws of physics"

 

Firstly define "science" and "scientifically"??  That should put an end to the ENDLESS equivocations. 

 

Second...I fully understand the Passion for Starlight for the OEC'ers.  Why? Well its all you got left, and you know it..... (Radiometric Dating/Geologic Column/Fossils/ "Looks Old") 13th Century Alchemy has long circled the drain and Vapor Locks under even the Slightest Scrutiny.

 

Thirdly...Of course the Bible is not a science book; However, there is enough "LIGHT" to dispatch all the OEC'ers and "scientists" Cockamamie "Stories" concerning the Age of the Earth/Universe.

 

Fourthly....A "LIGHT" even Cursory Reading of the 1st Chapter of Genesis tells you that the LAWS of Physics/Chemistry/Biochemistry weren't fixed as we know them today.

One for Example (expanded on in Genesis 2:7....Forming Adam).  Forming Adam from the dust of the Ground VIOLATES All Current Known Laws of Physics/Chemistry/Biochemistry and Myriads of others.  Wouldn't you agree?

 

If you disagree, I'll put the same challenge to you as I did with the silent Connor......Please show me a Human Created from the Dust of the Ground TODAY!....PM me when this happens.

 

 

Lets review..... Read this slowly:

 

(Genesis 1:14-19) "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:  {15} And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.  {16} And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.  {17} And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,  {18} And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.  {19} And the evening and the morning were the fourth day."

 

Lets do the:  Who/What/When//Why

 

Who:  GOD

WHAT:  Made Two Great Lights and the Stars Also....which also means the "LIGHT" therof

When:  DAY 4

 

Why: TO GIVE "LIGHT" upon the EARTH!  And most Importantly..... "AND IT WAS SO".

 

Not ................ "WILL GIVE" and "IT WASN'T SO".

 

Signs:  You don't get "SIGNS" from the MOON and the SUN.  You get SIGNS" from the Constellations.......STARS.  Before it was COUNTERFEITED and CORRUPTED by Nimrod/Semiramis and the Babylonians you had the Hebrew Mazzaroth  which..........................

 

(Psalms 19:1-4) "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.  {2} Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.  {3} There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.  {4} Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,"

 

Did you note that last Phrase??

 

 

An aside but still somewhat connected....And Goes Back To GOD IS THE AUTHOR:

 

(Job 38:31) "Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?"

 

Did you know that these are the only 2 Constellations in the Heaven's that are Gravitationally Linked?

We can't judge Depth of the Heavens with the naked eye.

 

If this statement was written with any other constellations, it would have been Nonsensical.

How did JOB know that 3000 years before the First Telescope?

 

 

 

Got some More Questions....Well a Picture can speak A Thousand Words, Right?  Well Riddle me this.....

 

 

 

The Farthest Galaxies had to release their Light Long Long Long before the Closer Galaxies

 

The Further Galaxies did not have as much time to Spiral (Rotate and Twist their Arms)

 

The Closer Galaxies should have the most Twist!!

 

Why don't they!!   Can you Riddle me that Love?

 

I'll tell you why....THEY WERE ALL MADE @ THE SAME TIME WITH THEIR LIGHT REACHING US @ THE SAME TIME.

 

Can I be Dogmatic about about the details?  Of course not...there's not enough "Light" in Scripture to warrant such a position.  Can I be Dogmatic Conceptually? Well Yes.....Because GOD SAID SO!!  And the EVIDENCE is right in front of our FACE.

 

 

REFUTE IT.  And not Generalizations and equivocations with "science".  Be SPECIFIC with Scripture and/or "science".

 

As I and many people have mentioned, the Bible is not a "Science" Book.....However; (depending on what you classify as "science") it does contain many science type statements.  If you want me to post them, just say the word.

 

Thanks

[nebula]

 

 

I didn't claim that anything happened outside the laws of nature or physics.   I said that God is not bound by what scientists say is possible.

I know of no single "miracle" that went outside of the laws of physics an nature.

Water into wine?

Giving sight to the blind?

Raising the dead?

Parting the Red Sea?

The Creation Museum, Answers in Genesis does everything it can to explain Genesis 1 within scientific parameters.

What you are explaining here is that Genesis 1 took place via what we call "miracles".

Thus, according to you, Ken Hamm is wrong, and all creationists whoever tried to make scientific inquiry into the past fit into the Genesis 1 account because not a single miracle has ever been able to fit with science.

 

Yeah, cause all creationists are slaves to Ken Ham, right???   Please...

Try actually reading what I said.

Shiloh, it hurts me when you talk rudely to me like this.

I am explaining my broadscope view of the issue. This was not a claim directed at you so much as an inconsistency in the YEC camp that is adding confusion to the issue.

 

I am differentiating between what scientists (little, fallible sinful men)

I am a scientist, too, Shiloh, and I take that remark personal, whether you meant it that way or not.

I wish you would discuss this me with a measure of respect as your friend. Demeaning your opponent and/or your opponent's position may have served you well in debate class, but it is a lousy way to interact with people. Please?

This frustrates me from wanting to keep discoursing with you.

[Sheniy]

One for Example (expanded on in Genesis 2:7....Forming Adam). Forming Adam from the dust of the Ground VIOLATES All Current Known Laws of Physics/Chemistry/Biochemistry and Myriads of others. Wouldn't you agree?

If you disagree, I'll put the same challenge to you as I did with the silent Connor......Please show me a Human Created from the Dust of the Ground TODAY!....PM me when this happens.

Your posts are alway so long, Enoch! It's hard to find the two lines I actually want to quote. lol

This challenge was easy, actually. Look in the mirror. YOU are created from dust.

We are 65% Oxygen, 18% Carbon, 10% Hydrogen, and 7% other elements like Iron, Calcium, Magnesium, Nitrogen, Sodium, etc, all elements found in the earth. (This is, of course, not counting the water in our bodies)

We are living clay men (and women), made of dirt and water, and our bodies are completely biodegradable when we are done with them. "to dust you shall return"

Now...forming a man from dust without a designer...that's another story.

 

[Sheniy]

Though perhaps "light" poses a more difficult area in understanding the Genesis 1 creative sequence there are reasonable possibilities.  It has been noted that the use of "asah" does not necessarily imply "create" but rather produced from existing material. Genesis 1:1strongly suggests an all encompassing act of creation of everything in the universe. Any number of Bible scholars ( Archer, Walker, Grudem, Harris, Boise, etc.) support this reading as it pertains to the fourth day. So that the sun, moon, and stars became visible on the fourth day. Again, a direct reading of Genesis certainly supports indefinite time for God's commands to be accomplished as by the fulfillments as explanatory.

 

One is certainly welcome to doubt the accumulated knowledge of science as regards - star distances and age of the universe.  I would think to do so would require demonstrating the flaws in parallax, stellar motion, inverse-square law, etc. and essentially question geometry and math. 

 

"We cannot with consistency employ the printing press, the railroad, the telegraph,(we would say computers, GPS, Jets, and iPhones) in the propagation of our gospel, and at the same time denounce as evil those activites of the human mind that produced these things."  J Gresham Machen 

 

Hi, Tolken!

 

When you say that the stars "became visible" on the fourth day, are you suggesting they were created earlier?  Like in Genesis 1?

[Enoch2021]

 

One for Example (expanded on in Genesis 2:7....Forming Adam). Forming Adam from the dust of the Ground VIOLATES All Current Known Laws of Physics/Chemistry/Biochemistry and Myriads of others. Wouldn't you agree?

If you disagree, I'll put the same challenge to you as I did with the silent Connor......Please show me a Human Created from the Dust of the Ground TODAY!....PM me when this happens.

Your posts are alway so long, Enoch! It's hard to find the two lines I actually want to quote. lol

This challenge was easy, actually. Look in the mirror. YOU are created from dust.

We are 65% Oxygen, 18% Carbon, 10% Hydrogen, and 7% other elements like Iron, Calcium, Magnesium, Nitrogen, Sodium, etc, all elements found in the earth. (This is, of course, not counting the water in our bodies)

We are living clay men (and women), made of dirt and water, and our bodies are completely biodegradable when we are done with them. "to dust you shall return"

Now...forming a man from dust without a designer...that's another story.

 

 

 

 

=======================================================================================================

 

 

This challenge was easy, actually. Look in the mirror. YOU are created from dust.

 

LOL.  My Mother would Sternly disagree with you.

 

Only Adam was CREATED from Dust, Love.  And most importantly for our discussion....in VIOLATION of all known "Scientific" LAWS.

 

 

Your posts are alway so long,

 

Sorry about that.  I try to be concise but I have much to say.  Do I use appropriate Transition?  LOL

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

 

I didn't claim that anything happened outside the laws of nature or physics.   I said that God is not bound by what scientists say is possible.

I know of no single "miracle" that went outside of the laws of physics an nature.

Water into wine?

Giving sight to the blind?

Raising the dead?

Parting the Red Sea?

The Creation Museum, Answers in Genesis does everything it can to explain Genesis 1 within scientific parameters.

What you are explaining here is that Genesis 1 took place via what we call "miracles".

Thus, according to you, Ken Hamm is wrong, and all creationists whoever tried to make scientific inquiry into the past fit into the Genesis 1 account because not a single miracle has ever been able to fit with science.

 

Yeah, cause all creationists are slaves to Ken Ham, right???   Please...

Try actually reading what I said.

Shiloh, it hurts me when you talk rudely to me like this.

I am explaining my broadscope view of the issue. This was not a claim directed at you so much as an inconsistency in the YEC camp that is adding confusion to the issue.

 

I am sorry.  I could have phrased that better.  I just get tired of scientific claims being equated with science as if the claims bear some level of infallbility.

 

I am differentiating between what scientists (little, fallible sinful men)

 

I am a scientist, too, Shiloh, and I take that remark personal, whether you meant it that way or not.

I wish you would discuss this me with a measure of respect as your friend. Demeaning your opponent and/or your opponent's position may have served you well in debate class, but it is a lousy way to interact with people. Please?

This frustrates me from wanting to keep discoursing with you.

 

I see...  So when YOU make criticisms aimed at the YEC camp as if we mindlessly walk in lock step with Ken Ham, I am not supposed to feel that such things are to be directed at me. But when I criticize the scientific community you cannot take those comments as anything but a personal slight against you.  Do you see a doublestandard in play, here? You can criticize the YEC camp without criticizing me, but I cannot criticize the scientific community without it being a criticism of you? 

 

My comments about scientists as being little, fallible, sinful men is a statement of fact. That is what they are.   This is battle of worldviews one based on theories of fallible men vs. the word of an all-knowing, all-powerful God.   I am simply putting forth the reminder that we don't need to be intimidated by the scientific community because of how they truly size up next to God and His Word.

[Tolken]

Sheniy - First I apologize as it has been many years since I have been involved on a forum.  I attempted to "Quote" your question with no success...and I see unable to copy and paste from whatever past notes I have in my email draft folder.

 

Aside from all that....Yes, I believe that the sun, moon, etc. became visible on the fourth day.  I believe that Genesis 1:1 clearly establishes that all the fundamental laws of physics (nature), and the incipient God ordained natural processes were manifested.  This I believe is a plain reading of the text.

[Sheniy]

(snip) The point is that if the Bible did get it wrong in Genesis, (snip)

The bible can only get it wrong if you're assuming it (or rather, the author) is trying to be scientifically or chronologically accurate. 

 

There's nothing in the text to indicate that it was intended to be taken as such.  It was not written by a scientist for scientific exposition, nor was it written by an historian, but by a shepherd prince (that's a cool title ) to the people who followed him.

 

As some of us have shown, the text seems to indicate an historical narrative (aka STORY) with a mythical bend whose intended audience was the Israelites, from whom the text probably came and who would have known it well and recognized its parallels (even if you do not).  Other cultural comparisons confirm this.

 

Evidence has been provided, but you've already rejected it without grounds (other than belittling our ability to understand the bible).

 

If you'd like, it can be posted again.

 

If you'd like evidence of the importance and value of cultural perspective when reading a text, I can give a clear example from Scripture.  Several, actually.

 

 

Well, I should clarify. I am not makinga dogmatic claim. I am saying that if the stars were not immediately visible, it isn't a problem. I am not claiming, as fact, that the stars were not visible the day they were created.

My point is that if they were not visitble with the naked eye by someone standing on the earth, it would resolve some huge problems. Critics of the YEC have always assumed that the stars had to be visible on day they were created, but that assumption forces YECers into a corner and they end up coming with imaginative scenarios as to how starlight could be visible on day one when those stars are too far away to be be seen by the naked eye on that day given that we know how fast light travels. This is has led YECers to suggest that light moved faster at that time, or that God creaed starlight in transit and other such nonsense.

Thank you for clarifying that first part.

I still don't understand what your point was, though...

Actually, Enoch's link about speed slowing down might fill in the gaps for me. I'd never heard it before.