Genesis 1: the obvious reading??

[Sheniy]

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.

 

I've considered that view, as well. 

 

I've considered the full spectrum of views, actually!    As of right now, though I'm still on the fence. (It is entirely a creationist fence, though. Just to clarify )

[Enoch2021]

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 

 

 

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

 

 

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.

 

Please show us in the TEXT of Genesis where it says that?  And it's a Fallacy......"Argument to Popularity"

 

 

Again, a direct reading of Genesis certainly supports indefinite time for God's commands to be accomplished as by the fulfillments as explanatory.

 

Again, SHOW Where?

 

 

One is certainly welcome to doubt the accumulated knowledge of science as regards - star distances and age of the universe.

 

Please put one of the "science" knowledge concerning star distances and age of the universe in the Scientific Method!!

 

Until you do, All you have are stories/fables and "begging the question" Fallacies......

 

'Scientific Evidence: consists of observations and EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

 

flaws in parallax, stellar motion, inverse-square law, etc. and essentially question geometry and math.

 

First go ahead and explain them.

 

Second,  Our contention is not really that the Stars aren't those great distances....they probably are, it's Irrelevant to the topic actually.

 

AND, I want to see you illustrate Trigonometric Parallax on a Star Cluster or Galaxy 100 million "Light Years" away.  This should be fun.

 

 

"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

 

HOGWASH!!!  The Poster Child of IMPLIED EQUIVOCATION..... And a STRAWMAN: who denounces these things as evil??  And What in the World has this (the railroad, the telegraphwe would say computers, GPS, Jets, and iPhones) to do with the Belief/Faith in the Bible??

 

These things are technology derived from EXPERIMENTAL/OPERATIONAL Science Via The Scientific Method not fairytales/stories/fables which come from "CLAIMS" the Scientists make instead of Scientific Claims/Evidence.

 

Whatever do you mean?  Can you clarify?

[Tolken]

Sheniy - Yes, I think "creationist" is the proper fence to sit upon, too. I do believe however what Machen said so many years ago is very relevant today.  We often attempt to diminish the accomplishments of science while at the same time we are steeped every day in scientific advancements...a bit hypocritical. 

 

A sufficiently delicate (GKC) reading of Genesis 1 does quite clearly reveal a structure.  First, plainly stated is that God spoke (And "God said"), not that God had made or done but simply commanded. Ultimately the origin of all things rests solely on the "Word of God".  Clearly then all that follows after "And God said" is an explanation. The notion that fulfillment was immediate is not required ... we do realize that God's commands will be fulfilled, in His time.

[Sheniy]

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

 

I was just teasing about the posts.   I'm thinking that maybe your emphasis is a bit to...emphatic? 

I feel like sometimes you're SCREAMING AT ME!!!!! 

 

I know you don't mean it that way, but it's a little unnerving.  Maybe...tone it down a bit?  There are other ways to get your point across that won't make someone's eyes bleed.

 

 

As for the created from dust part...I guess I don't understand your point.

 

As for you not being created, I disagree.  Whether you refer to the natural process created by God that turns elements into minerals, drawn in by vegetation, converted to nutrients that are absorbed and assimilated as part of a complex biological system that builds a human being from a speck to a whole person (made from dust), or the direct hand of God that ordains every life's beginning (breath of life), you are created.  Read Psalms 139 for more proof.

 

Are you asking for a living example of someone created exactly the way Adam was?  Really, all it says is that he was created out of dust, which is really not all that different than anyone else.  We don't know the specific details of Adam's creation other than 1) made from dust, 2) breath of life.  So...what do you want an example of that I've not already given?

 

And...again, I've risen to the challenge without understanding why.   (Why do you tempt me?! lol)

 

So...what's this have to do with breaking laws?

[Sheniy]

A sufficiently delicate (GKC) reading of Genesis 1 does quite clearly reveal a structure.  First, plainly stated is that God spoke (And "God said"), not that God had made or done but simply commanded. Ultimately the origin of all things rests solely on the "Word of God".  Clearly then all that follows after "And God said" is an explanation. The notion that fulfillment was immediate is not required ... we do realize that God's commands will be fulfilled, in His time.

I've heard a theory that uses time dilation as a possible explanation that (I think) allows for both old and young earth. Or...maybe it was old earth with an "as written" interpretation of Genesis 1. It was interesting. I'll have to see if I can find it again.

I forgot, I was going to comment on the issues you were having with quoting. I've noticed that sometimes the quote button doesn't always work. If I refresh the page, it seems to fix this problem. Hope that helps!

[Tolken]

Enoch2021 - Sorry not able to properly use quotes.  As to your "argument to popularity" I would suggest that each of us accumulates our knowledge base from what we've read and learned...so that argument may find us all guilty. Further you will note that I stated that certain Biblical scholars "supported" this, it was simply a demonstration of support from authority. 

 

As to support for "indefinite time spans" I would simply suggest that we do have some knowledge of such things as gestation periods.  Also, if "And God said" is the sole operative, which clearly it is, then how does it not stand to reason that what follows is explanatory?  God did not say "Let living creatures come into being" rather He said "Let the land produce living creatures" ...I would trust that implies strongly other than immediate creation.

 

As for science and star distances there exist myriad sites for the further explanations you seem to require.  I have little interest in simply copy and pasting what you are more then able to research on your own. As you doubt the information anyway why get into an infinite regress of futility.

 

As for Machen I believe his intent was to show that science is not antithetical to Christian beliefs. I believe other Christians such as Francis Schaeffer made similar points regarding Christian retreat in the early 20th century.  

[nebula]

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?

No Shiloh, it's the words you have used - "little, fallible sinful men" for instance - that bite me, not the analytical criticism. Disagree with me all you want, say that scientists are limited in their understanding - fine. Just please do not include the belittling adjectives and phrases.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

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

 

 

I was just teasing about the posts.   I'm thinking that maybe your emphasis is a bit to...emphatic? 

I feel like sometimes you're SCREAMING AT ME!!!!! 

 

I know you don't mean it that way, but it's a little unnerving.  Maybe...tone it down a bit?  There are other ways to get your point across that won't make someone's eyes bleed.

 

 

As for the created from dust part...I guess I don't understand your point.

 

As for you not being created, I disagree.  Whether you refer to the natural process created by God that turns elements into minerals, drawn in by vegetation, converted to nutrients that are absorbed and assimilated as part of a complex biological system that builds a human being from a speck to a whole person (made from dust), or the direct hand of God that ordains every life's beginning (breath of life), you are created.  Read Psalms 139 for more proof.

 

Are you asking for a living example of someone created exactly the way Adam was?  Really, all it says is that he was created out of dust, which is really not all that different than anyone else.  We don't know the specific details of Adam's creation other than 1) made from dust, 2) breath of life.  So...what do you want an example of that I've not already given?

 

And...again, I've risen to the challenge without understanding why.   (Why do you tempt me?! lol)

 

So...what's this have to do with breaking laws?

 

 

 

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

 

 

I know you don't mean it that way, but it's a little unnerving.  Maybe...tone it down a bit?  There are other ways to get your point across that won't make someone's eyes bleed.

 

Too funny.  Another Woman trying to change me    Not gonna happen Love.  However, your point is noted.

 

 

 

As for the created from dust part...I guess I don't understand your point.

 

Sheniy, go ahead and friend me or PM (It's scary @ first, but we must take chances @ some point LOL).  Hit the chat, and I'll give you my phone number and I'll explain it.

 

Good? 

[Enoch2021]

Enoch2021 - Sorry not able to properly use quotes.  As to your "argument to popularity" I would suggest that each of us accumulates our knowledge base from what we've read and learned...so that argument may find us all guilty. Further you will note that I stated that certain Biblical scholars "supported" this, it was simply a demonstration of support from authority. 

 

As to support for "indefinite time spans" I would simply suggest that we do have some knowledge of such things as gestation periods.  Also, if "And God said" is the sole operative, which clearly it is, then how does it not stand to reason that what follows is explanatory?  God did not say "Let living creatures come into being" rather He said "Let the land produce living creatures" ...I would trust that implies strongly other than immediate creation.

 

As for science and star distances there exist myriad sites for the further explanations you seem to require.  I have little interest in simply copy and pasting what you are more then able to research on your own. As you doubt the information anyway why get into an infinite regress of futility.

 

As for Machen I believe his intent was to show that science is not antithetical to Christian beliefs. I believe other Christians such as Francis Schaeffer made similar points regarding Christian retreat in the early 20th century.  

 

 

 

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

 

 

As to your "argument to popularity" I would suggest that each of us accumulates our knowledge base from what we've read and learned...so that argument may find us all guilty.

 

No Sir, it's not the same you're equivocating with this.  You're previous example was a Textbook "Argument to Popularity": http://logical-critical-thinking.com/logical-fallacy/appeal-to-popularity/

 

 

we do have some knowledge of such things as gestation periods

 

For what?  And most importantly.....How?

 

 

Also, if "And God said" is the sole operative, which clearly it is, then how does it not stand to reason that what follows is explanatory?  God did not say "Let living creatures come into being" rather He said "Let the land produce living creatures" ...I would trust that implies strongly other than immediate creation.

 

Tell you what...go ahead and PM or reply to Shiloh with this.  He has much more patience and expertise in this area than I do.  I can't deal with this now.

 

As for science and star distances there exist myriad sites for the further explanations you seem to require.  I have little interest in simply copy and pasting what you are more then able to research on your own. As you doubt the information anyway why get into an infinite regress of futility.

 

Thanks, I already have and DO often.  As for your infinite regress, say want you want specifically without Elephant Hurling tests and hypothesis and we'll go through one @ a Time.

 

 

As for Machen I believe his intent was to show that science is not antithetical to Christian beliefs. I believe other Christians such as Francis Schaeffer made similar points regarding Christian retreat in the early 20th century.

 

And It's Irrelevant, My reply stands

[nebula]

Enoch, I apologize for not being able to delve into all that you mentioned. But this stood out.
 

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.

Actually, this is an example of how our perceptions are failing to coordinate, and because of this we can never come to an agreement.

I do not perceive this as a case where the physical laws did not exist yet, but rather something more along the lines of a miracle - like how Jesus healed the ear that Peter cut off or when He turned water into wine or when God caused Balaam's donkey to talk with a human voice.

When I read that, I picture God crafting the dust/clay of earth into a body, transformed the sculpted figure into living tissue, and infused a living spirit/soul into the man making him alive.

Do you believe God could create another man this same way today if He wanted to? I believe He could if He wanted to (why He isn't is another topic).

 
 

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".

There is one question that is missing, or two.

What happened to the light created on Day 1?

Why did God need to create other lights to light upon the earth?


Unless this means that after God separated light from darkness, He created the "the land" inside the darkness.

So, what is that light God created Day 1, and where is it?

And why did He create "light" on Day 1 if it was not to be a part of our existence? Or at least why mention it as a part of our story?

 

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..........................

Actually, you do get signs from the Moon and Sun - refer to what John saw in Revelation with the "signs in the Heavens" - the sun and moon are mentioned with them.


Oh, and you forgot about the marking of seasons.


 

(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??

Unless you are claiming that the sun orbits the Earth, I am not following your point.

 

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

I'm not arguing God's authorship - just how we interpret Genesis 1. There's a big difference.


 

(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?

 
If I have more time to look it up I'll post it later, but I found out some interesting information about those two constellations.

The constellation we call Orion, named after a Greek mythological hero, in ancient times was thought of as Nimrod, who was bound in chains.

I forgot who or what they thought the "Pleiades" as, but it was conversely something considered good.