Genesis 1: the obvious reading??

[Tolken]

Enoch2021 - I am quite familiar with Fallacies and will simply suggest that no appeal to popularity is being made.  Unless of course you can show me that the majority of biblical scholars hold this view. I would hope that few base their thoughts, ideas, and opinions without some appeal to authority, or should I say proper authority. 

 

I would look forward to a response from Shiloh....time for many of us is of the essence.

 

Here is an appeal to popularity for you... the majority of Christian apologists would agree with Machen on the retreat of Christian academics in the public forum in the early and mid twentieth century. It was hardly irrelevant then nor is it now in the world of today when the Christian worldview is losing the battles for minds, and ultimately hearts.

[a-seeker]

That is, the YEC begins first with the need for Genesis 1 to be mere history; then proceeds to look for the “proofs” that it is so. But of course all exegesis or science performed after the conclusion is formed is nothing more than a charade; everything becomes evidence in favor of the verdict, for desperation can find almost anything almost anywhere.

 

Where to begin with this mess?  So what your saying is; it is wrong for us "YEC" to Trust the PLAIN WORD OF GOD first?  So we should go to "science" or Fables or Myths first then use this as our Hermeneutic Filter for the WORD OF GOD?

 

 

 

It is wrong to open up any document assuming that you know the literary genre of the document.  The scientific maneuvers you make (saying the laws were different) are necessary only if Genesis 1 is intended as historical narrative.  It is also, if not wrong, then unwise, to begin answering a post before reading it all the way through.  My point is that there is enough confusion generated when reading Genesis 1 as an historical narrative to question whether that is the appropriate genre.

That was the point of the experiment—it was contended that a 12 year old could read Genesis 1 and see that it was historical narrative.  My contention is not that YEC is wrong, but that Genesis 1 is not CLEARLY an historical narrative.

Also, it is incautious to read through a post and respond to it every time something catches your eye; read through the post entirely and carefully.  The above response is the very opposite of what I was saying.  Again, when selecting a small portion to quote, don’t respond to that small portion—keep the whole context in mind and respond to that.

 

And above all, keep your cool.  Sass and causticity are not impressive and make it appear that you are losing ground.  Also, I don't know what half your emoticons "emote".

 

I am told by the scientists that the stars are billions of miles away

 

They also told us Piltdown Man was our relative, Archaeopteryx was a Feathered Dinosaur, and Soft Tissue can Last for 80 Million Years.

 

And, of course they (and you), are "begging the question" FALLACY with the current Speed of Light and Extrapolating that Back to the Beginning.  Assuming the very thing they (and you) are trying to prove....http://logical-criti...g-the-question/

 

And "scientists" @ current, know as much about Light as they know about Gravity...which isn't much.

 

However, they (the stars) could be that far...it's irrelevant to the YEC position anyway...more on that in a minute.

 

 

 

 

Again, these are the types of scientific maneuvers I would make if I began reading Genesis 1 already assuming it was historical narrative.  There is simply no reason for me to even entertain the possibility that the behavior of light or any natural process was radically different, unless I held to a literary theory of Genesis that required me to do so.  But I can't discern its genre until I open it up and read it.  At a cursory reading, it is not obvious that it is historical narrative.  Perhaps it is; the point of my experiment is that it is not obvious and begs that other genres be tested.

 

Nor will I labor the point that I am not necessarily an OEC; I think the YEC interpretation dead wrong, but I don't necessarily think that the scientists are right.

 

So you're like "Fence Riding"/Switzerland,  neither Hot nor Cold?  You think YEC is dead wrong?  Will you @ some point Support this Statement or just leave it like the Strawman above?

 

 

I did; it was taken “off the air”; twice.  I was permitted to invite someone into a one on one discussion.  I invited Shiloh.  He declined.  Would you like to?

clb

 

 

[Enoch2021]

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.

 

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

This is possible and the only explanation I can think of.  I may need to take a break from the threads because of this......

 

 

I do not perceive this as a case where the physical laws did not exist yet,

 

Neb, I'm not saying the Laws didn't Exist....I'm saying they were not the same during Creation Week as they are today.... They Weren't FIXED

 

 

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.

 

Yes, so do I

 

 

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).

 

Yes, without even thinking.  It is quite apparent to me, GOD holds every Electron in Every Atom's Orbit in the Entire Universe AND HE must be directly involved in Every Single Cell Division....I see no other explanation, Personally.

 

And this was not the point I was trying to make.  Just to show that the LAWS were not fixed then, so any extrapolation from today's current LAWS is nonsensical. IMHO.

 

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.

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?

 

I don't know

 

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

 

Well from reading the Text and Comparing Scripture with Scripture.  Light "Was" on the First Day.  HE didn't create the Sun/Moon,Stars until Day 4.  I say Conundrum..... time to dig deeper.  Is there any place in Scripture where there is Light without the SUN......

 

(Revelation 22:5) "And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever."

 

GOD is "LIGHT".  Case closed for me.

 

 

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.

 

 

Those are END TIMES signs Neb...nothing to do with SIGNS and Seasons in Genesis.

 

Yes, I did forget Seasons......sorry.   Seasons

 

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

 

No that wasn't my point....My point was the Separation of the description and role for the Sun vs Stars.

 

 

"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."

 

Kool, go ahead and post it.  When I first came across that JOB passage and the significance it floored me 

 

 

How about those Spiral Galaxies when you get a chance.

[a-seeker]

Light as we know it is based on waves and particles.  Trace them back and you will get to a source.  Today, we ultimately get to stars (ours or the billion others).  Back then, you would get (you say) to God.  What would you see once you traced the light all the way back to its source?

 

 

God is the one who said let their be light.  He created the light.  He is the source.  I don’t see what you are trying to argue with on that.   I didn’t make it up.  It’s right there in the Bible.

 

 

Light is physical phenomenon.  Like water it has a physical source in our experience.  If I were in a very dark cave and saw a small point of light through a crack, I would assume that it had a source: either a lamp lit in some room, or coming directly from the sun.  God said, "let there be light".  Where is the light's Physical source?  From where are the waves and particles generating?  I am not speaking of its "ultimate cause" but its physical source.  What on day one corresponds to a lamp, or a sun, or any other physical source of physical light?

 

But again I don't want to get bogged down here.  My point is that the questions which arise from a quick reading of Scripture, and more so, the answers which I am forced to accept on the basis that God intended GEnesis to be an historical narrative, begs for other genres to be considered.

 

 

 

 

[EnochBethany]

 

Light as we know it is based on waves and particles.  Trace them back and you will get to a source.  Today, we ultimately get to stars (ours or the billion others).  Back then, you would get (you say) to God.  What would you see once you traced the light all the way back to its source?

 

 

 

God is the one who said let their be light.  He created the light.  He is the source.  I don’t see what you are trying to argue with on that.   I didn’t make it up.  It’s right there in the Bible.

 

 

Light is physical phenomenon.  Like water it has a physical source in our experience.  If I were in a very dark cave and saw a small point of light through a crack, I would assume that it had a source: either a lamp lit in some room, or coming directly from the sun.  God said, "let there be light".  Where is the light's Physical source?  From where are the waves and particles generating?  I am not speaking of its "ultimate cause" but its physical source.  What on day one corresponds to a lamp, or a sun, or any other physical source of physical light?

 

But again I don't want to get bogged down here.  My point is that the questions which arise from a quick reading of Scripture, and more so, the answers which I am forced to accept on the basis that God intended GEnesis to be an historical narrative, begs for other genres to be considered.

 

 

 

 

 

 

If every physical entity has a physical source, does that make some physical entity eternal?  I mean how far back do you go with the source of the source of the source?  What is the proof that every physical entity has a physical source?

[anthonyjmcgirr]

How big was the universe when it was first created?  The bible itself says that it is God who stretches the Heavens with His hands, evidence of an expanding universe before science knew such a thing existed.  Could the stars have been much closer at one point and then pulled away as God stretched the universe?  Is it possible that light is slowing down and hasn't always been at a constant state?  Is it possible that science has a few things wrong, like the distance of stars? 

 

How come when science makes a claim, it is automatically accepted and then we question our faith, even though that claim accepted as truth will change time and time again.  How many times has the age of the earth changed?  How many times has the theory of evolution been tweaked and changed around? 

 

Science is naturalistic by nature and takes no account whatsoever of the supernatural!  So if a supernatural God exists and He supernaturally created the universe, why then must you accept a naturalistic answer as if it is more logical?

 

Except, without a Creator God, you cannot even begin to know how the universe started and how life started and the human conscience, our brains, intelligence, complexity of life, etc.  Science has no answers for these questions.  Bill Nye admitted that in the debate.  They don't know.  But they are trying to figure it out without ever admitting God must exist.  If they're doing everything they can to explain it all away without a God (which is impossible), why must you take their word for it?  The bible has the answers.  God Himself told us how He did it and yet we doubt it ONLY because we have this idea in the modern world that science trumps all.  That must mean we put more faith in fallible men with 'answers' that constantly change and evolve more than nature than God's word. 

 

And yes, we must accept the Genesis account as a historical narrative because Jesus' genealogy goes all the way back to Adam!  So if all of that was just a figurative narrative, then we are calling parts of the New Testament wrong as well, especially as they spoke about creation, the flood, etc.

[Sheniy]

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.

You have piqued my interest.

Especially that bit on Pleiades being considered good. And the bit on Orion, because it is my favorite constellation. (Yes, I have a favorite constellation. I'm a nerd. )

 

Apparently I need to learn what especially means.   This is what sleep deprivation does to my brain.

[Enoch2021]

 

That is, the YEC begins first with the need for Genesis 1 to be mere history; then proceeds to look for the “proofs” that it is so. But of course all exegesis or science performed after the conclusion is formed is nothing more than a charade; everything becomes evidence in favor of the verdict, for desperation can find almost anything almost anywhere.

 

Where to begin with this mess?  So what your saying is; it is wrong for us "YEC" to Trust the PLAIN WORD OF GOD first?  So we should go to "science" or Fables or Myths first then use this as our Hermeneutic Filter for the WORD OF GOD?

 

 

 

It is wrong to open up any document assuming that you know the literary genre of the document.  The scientific maneuvers you make (saying the laws were different) are necessary only if Genesis 1 is intended as historical narrative.  It is also, if not wrong, then unwise, to begin answering a post before reading it all the way through.  My point is that there is enough confusion generated when reading Genesis 1 as an historical narrative to question whether that is the appropriate genre.

That was the point of the experiment—it was contended that a 12 year old could read Genesis 1 and see that it was historical narrative.  My contention is not that YEC is wrong, but that Genesis 1 is not CLEARLY an historical narrative.

Also, it is incautious to read through a post and respond to it every time something catches your eye; read through the post entirely and carefully.  The above response is the very opposite of what I was saying.  Again, when selecting a small portion to quote, don’t respond to that small portion—keep the whole context in mind and respond to that.

 

And above all, keep your cool.  Sass and causticity are not impressive and make it appear that you are losing ground.  Also, I don't know what half your emoticons "emote".

 

I am told by the scientists that the stars are billions of miles away

 

They also told us Piltdown Man was our relative, Archaeopteryx was a Feathered Dinosaur, and Soft Tissue can Last for 80 Million Years.

 

And, of course they (and you), are "begging the question" FALLACY with the current Speed of Light and Extrapolating that Back to the Beginning.  Assuming the very thing they (and you) are trying to prove....http://logical-criti...g-the-question/

 

And "scientists" @ current, know as much about Light as they know about Gravity...which isn't much.

 

However, they (the stars) could be that far...it's irrelevant to the YEC position anyway...more on that in a minute.

 

 

 

 

Again, these are the types of scientific maneuvers I would make if I began reading Genesis 1 already assuming it was historical narrative.  There is simply no reason for me to even entertain the possibility that the behavior of light or any natural process was radically different, unless I held to a literary theory of Genesis that required me to do so.  But I can't discern its genre until I open it up and read it.  At a cursory reading, it is not obvious that it is historical narrative.  Perhaps it is; the point of my experiment is that it is not obvious and begs that other genres be tested.

 

Nor will I labor the point that I am not necessarily an OEC; I think the YEC interpretation dead wrong, but I don't necessarily think that the scientists are right.

 

So you're like "Fence Riding"/Switzerland,  neither Hot nor Cold?  You think YEC is dead wrong?  Will you @ some point Support this Statement or just leave it like the Strawman above?

 

 

I did; it was taken “off the air”; twice.  I was permitted to invite someone into a one on one discussion.  I invited Shiloh.  He declined.  Would you like to?

clb

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

First I'm looking @ my rebuttal to your post on another Browser...you didn't deal with approx 75% of what I said

 

 

The scientific maneuvers you make (saying the laws were different) are necessary only if Genesis 1 is intended as historical narrative.

 

Scietific maneuvers, eh?  Well because it is a Historic Narrative Connor, for cryin out loud.

 

This is what I see....  I'm saying that 1 + 1 = 2...you're saying 1 + 1 = 3.  For us to move forward with anything, we have to establish the foundation, Right?  No sense in discovering any other mysteries because it's a waste of time and useless off of a faulty base.

 

(saying the laws were different)

 

This is what I'm talking about.   I'm sorry you can't see this, I truly am.  You see the sky as Green I say it's Blue.... AND I'm not only telling you it's Blue, I'm pulling WORD FOR WORD SCRIPTURE and showing you.

 

 

Also, it is incautious to read through a post and respond to it every time something catches your eye; read through the post entirely and carefully.  Again, when selecting a small portion to quote, don’t respond to that small portion—keep the whole context in mind and respond to that.

 

How in the WORLD would you know whether I did or didn't ??????  Just because I quote a small piece????  Is it possible Connor, that I read your whole post multiple times and for Format and Brevity decided to just quote the JIST??  Is that Possible?

 

 

And above all, keep your cool.  Sass and causticity are not impressive and make it appear that you are losing ground.  Also, I don't know what half your emoticons "emote".

 

Connor, truthfully; I'm reaching the end of discussions with you.  They get bogged down in Trivial, Quibbling, Assumption Laden, Color Commentary and Emotional  diatribes.

 

 

that the behavior of light or any natural process was radically different,

 

I am Absolutely Stupefied Connor.  Here's an emoticon that perfectly illustrates a complete summation of this statement, I think you might understand this one.....    I must have posted a demonstrable 1 + 1 = 2, CLEAR and Obvious, Thoroughly Documented Scripture Laden Rebuttal to this @ least 20 times....I'm @ the end.

 

 

Connor you seem like a Good Man to me...... so it's not personal.  If my replies have come off as Condescending or Arrogant I am Truly sorry, it's not and wasn't my intent.

 

But I have provided Counter Arguments with a METRIC TON of Support.  There's not much else I can do.  I stated the case....I rest.

[Enoch2021]

How big was the universe when it was first created?  The bible itself says that it is God who stretches the Heavens with His hands, evidence of an expanding universe before science knew such a thing existed.  Could the stars have been much closer at one point and then pulled away as God stretched the universe?  Is it possible that light is slowing down and hasn't always been at a constant state?  Is it possible that science has a few things wrong, like the distance of stars? 

 

How come when science makes a claim, it is automatically accepted and then we question our faith, even though that claim accepted as truth will change time and time again.  How many times has the age of the earth changed?  How many times has the theory of evolution been tweaked and changed around? 

 

Science is naturalistic by nature and takes no account whatsoever of the supernatural!  So if a supernatural God exists and He supernaturally created the universe, why then must you accept a naturalistic answer as if it is more logical?

 

Except, without a Creator God, you cannot even begin to know how the universe started and how life started and the human conscience, our brains, intelligence, complexity of life, etc.  Science has no answers for these questions.  Bill Nye admitted that in the debate.  They don't know.  But they are trying to figure it out without ever admitting God must exist.  If they're doing everything they can to explain it all away without a God (which is impossible), why must you take their word for it?  The bible has the answers.  God Himself told us how He did it and yet we doubt it ONLY because we have this idea in the modern world that science trumps all.  That must mean we put more faith in fallible men with 'answers' that constantly change and evolve more than nature than God's word. 

 

And yes, we must accept the Genesis account as a historical narrative because Jesus' genealogy goes all the way back to Adam!  So if all of that was just a figurative narrative, then we are calling parts of the New Testament wrong as well, especially as they spoke about creation, the flood, etc.

 

 

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

 

 

How big was the universe when it was first created?  The bible itself says that it is God who stretches the Heavens with His hands, evidence of an expanding universe before science knew such a thing existed.  Could the stars have been much closer at one point and then pulled away as God stretched the universe?  Is it possible that light is slowing down and hasn't always been at a constant state?  Is it possible that science has a few things wrong, like the distance of stars?

 

:clap:        :thumbsup:         :dance: :101:

 

 

Anthony....Honestly, I was just about to close up shop for a couple weeks.  You have postponed my departure (@ least for the moment )

[Sheniy]

that the behavior of light or any natural process was radically different,

 

I am Absolutely Stupefied Connor.  Here's an emoticon that perfectly illustrates a complete summation of this statement, I think you might understand this one.....    I must have posted a demonstrable 1 + 1 = 2, CLEAR and Obvious, Thoroughly Documented Scripture Laden Rebuttal to this @ least 20 times....I'm @ the end.

 

 

Connor you seem like a Good Man to me...... so it's not personal.  If my replies have come off as Condescending or Arrogant I am Truly sorry, it's not and wasn't my intent.

 

But I have provided Counter Arguments with a METRIC TON of Support.  There's not much else I can do.  I stated the case....I rest.

I have to admit, Enoch, your posts are sometimes so...loud, that I don't even read them completely (if I don't, then other's likely don't as well). I will skim them over and reply to some bits here or there, but I'm sure there is a lot that I missed, and other parts that seemed a bit off topic and so I disregard them.

From your perspective, you've given a "metric ton" of evidence, but I haven't seen that much. Some, yes. But likely not as much as you think.

Although, I did just confess to not reading all of it...so...

Anyway, my point of this is that you left out the second part of connor's sentence, which is important to his argument (I think...).

Using scripture as evidence doesn't really work if your intended audience doesn't agree with your interpretation of that Scripture.

I am pretty sleep deprived right now, so I hope this makes any sense...