Genesis 1 made more sensible and scientific

[6days]

I'm not sure but it seems you are embarassed to say what you really believe. Was there many thousands of years of death, cannibalism, suffering, thorns and decay before sin? *Was Eve created from a rib actually the mother of all? *Was the earth inhabited with spiritless humans? Why did Jesus have to physically die?

I haven't made any "secular additions" to scripture. I'm the one who's explaining everything from scripture. If you followed my example, you might gain some credibility here.

No... you actually try to explain scripture away. And, you didn't answer the above questions.

Genesis 1 says "In the beginning..."
* * Rivers says Genesis 1 was not the beginning.

Genesis 1 says God made the stars on day 4
* * Rivers says God did not make the stars on day 4

Scripture tells us that Eve was the mother of all.
* * *Rivers says Eve was not the mother of all.

Scripture tells us God created everything in six days.
* * *Rivers says it was a re-creation...and millions of years in the making.

God says death, pain, thorns and sufferring are a result of mans sin.
* * *Greg says (I think) that God used millions of years of death as a creative process and called it very good.*

Jesus said male and female were from the beginning of creation.*
* * *Rivers says Jesus meant that humans came billions of years after creation.*

Exodus tells us God created the heavens and the earth and everything in them in six days.
* * *Rivers says this was a local event only.

Moses said the flood waters rose 15 cubits over the highest mountain..
* * *Rivers says .....??? Moses meant the local hills?

Rivers...your secular additions to scripture end up causing you to compromise throughout scripture

 

[Rivers]

Its not really speculative, it relies on the most recent revelation of truth to our world, the Urantia Book of which I have been a student for 30+ years. I agree with 6Days and others, a plain reading of Genesis clearly shows that the authors said what they meant and meant what they said. Their story is a YEC story.

I agree. However, what you've missed in your 30+ years of studying the external sources is that the Hebrew terms "heavens and earth" do not mean planet or universe (as we know it). The writer plainly gave the limited definition of these two terms in Genesis 1:8, 10. This language refers to nothing more than the "land" and "skies" in any given region.

I can also understand how contemporary men of faith are wise enough to realize that, all things considered, the earth isn't young.

I agree. But both "contemporary men of faith" and most scientists don't understand that "history" is only what is actually recorded by human testimony. Thus, science cannot confirm anything that happened prior to human observation. Thus, even if the human race is 20,000 years old (i.e. before Adam and Eve), we have no way of knowing whether the Earth or Solar System is any older than recorded history.

 

[Ben Masada]

The Genesis creation story has nothing to do with the "universe" as we know it today. The writer indicated that he was referring to a specific region where the land of Eden was located about 4,000 BC (Genesis 2:8-14).

A literal reading of the "six days" doesn't require that the Earth or the universe is only 6,000 years old. It only requires that the regional events happened at that time. There was already "deep waters covering the land" before the "six days" even started (Genesis 1:2).

Yes Rivers, you are right. Thanks for sharing with me that revelation of the truth. It means that my prophetic view of the "Let there be light" was after all true of being Israel, the Light of the world. (Isaiah 46:2; Mat. 5:14) Hence, the Essenes were also right about their Theology of the Children of light versus the children of darkness.

 

[Rivers]

Yes Rivers, you are right. Thanks for sharing with me that revelation of the truth. It means that my prophetic view of the "Let there be light" was after all true of being Israel, the Light of the world. (Isaiah 46:2; Mat. 5:14) Hence, the Essenes were also right about their Theology of the Children of light versus the children of darkness.

There's no likelihood that your interpretation is right at all. The Essenes didn't write the Genesis creation story and it has nothing to do with Israel or the Children of Light concept. Genesis needs to be interpreted according to the language its own writer used and in its own context.

 

[Rivers]

No... you actually try to explain scripture away. And, you didn't answer the above questions ....your secular additions to scripture end up causing you to compromise throughout scripture

I've given the answers to all of your questions from scripture. Unfortunately, you don't seem to care about how the biblical writers used their own language or the context in which they use it. It's not my responsiblity to convince you.

 

[Stripe]

You haven't exposed anyone's "errors." If you're going to claim that someone has committed a "fallacy" you should be able to claim what it is. Anybody can say that someone commits a "fallacy." I'm still not sure you even know what the word means.

To be fair, you haven't retracted your question-begging assertions in your conversation with me.

 

[Stripe]

Unfortunately, you don't seem to care about how the biblical writers used their own language or the context in which they use it.

You're not justified in denying the plain meaning and appealing to "context" without convincing reasons. We are in the driver's seat here, as we do not contend with what scripture says. The Bible says that the sun was made on Day 4. If you have reasons we should not believe that, it is your job to provide sound reasoning. And boy will it have to be earth-shaking stuff.

Meanwhile, we are utterly justified in rejecting your ideas in favor of what the words say.

 

[Caino]

I agree. However, what you've missed in your 30+ years of studying the external sources is that the Hebrew terms "heavens and earth" do not mean planet or universe (as we know it). The writer plainly gave the limited definition of these two terms in Genesis 1:8, 10. This language refers to nothing more than the "land" and "skies" in any given region.



I agree. But both "contemporary men of faith" and most scientists don't understand that "history" is only what is actually recorded by human testimony. Thus, science cannot confirm anything that happened prior to human observation. Thus, even if the human race is 20,000 years old (i.e. before Adam and Eve), we have no way of knowing whether the Earth or Solar System is any older than recorded history.

Ok, but you seem to indicate that the Hebrew language was from the beginning???? Moses predates Hebrew, all that is recorded in Genesis was originally written or spoken orally in a different language. So there were preveous "translations" of words such as you point out.

Also, we can use radiometric dating to determine the age of the earth and the many epochs of life contained within the fossil record. So we do have a way of knowing how old things are.

 

[Ben Masada]

There's no likelihood that your interpretation is right at all. The Essenes didn't write the Genesis creation story and it has nothing to do with Israel or the Children of Light concept. Genesis needs to be interpreted according to the language its own writer used and in its own context.

I did not say that the Essenes wrote any thing in the Tanach. Only that their Theology coincides with the "Let there be light". That's all! But one thing I tell you for denying that Genesis has any thing to do with Israel. The whole of the Tanach has every thing to do with Israel. Israel is all that the Tanach is about.

 

[Rivers]

Ok, but you seem to indicate that the Hebrew language was from the beginning???? Moses predates Hebrew, all that is recorded in Genesis was originally written or spoken orally in a different language. So there were preveous "translations" of words such as you point out.

Again, this is all speculative. What we understand about the Genesis creation story must be derived from the use of the Hebrew language in which it was written (as we don't have any other options). It doesn't make any difference if the language supposedly pre-dated Moses or someone else wrote it.

Also, we can use radiometric dating to determine the age of the earth and the many epochs of life contained within the fossil record. So we do have a way of knowing how old things are.

Radiometric dating and the fossil record are also interpreted along the lines of certain presuppositions and the necessity of extrapolating data that cannot be scientifically verified. If there was nobody around to report the existence of the Solar System more than 20,000 years ago, then we cannot "prove" that it's any older.

There are also many things reported by ancient astronomers throughout the world that don't correspond to what modern scientists observe today. This should cause us to consider that scientific assumptions and applications to past history may not be valid.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Again, this is all speculative. What we understand about the Genesis creation story must be derived from the use of the Hebrew language in which it was written (as we don't have any other options). It doesn't make any difference if the language supposedly pre-dated Moses or someone else wrote it.



Radiometric dating and the fossil record are also interpreted along the lines of certain presuppositions and the necessity of extrapolating data that cannot be scientifically verified. If there was nobody around to report the existence of the Solar System more than 20,000 years ago, then we cannot "prove" that it's any older.

There are also many things reported by ancient astronomers throughout the world that don't correspond to what modern scientists observe today. This should cause us to consider that scientific assumptions and applications to past history may not be valid.

Ok so let me stop you there real quick. Are you yet another person who is incapable of accepting radiometric dating? If so, please do some light reading on it from a CREDIBLE (.edu or .org, normally) source. It's not a question whether it works or not. You have to use the right method for the right situation though, as some isotopes break down every few thousand years and others break down in hundreds of millions.

Here is a good source on the subject: http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=2901

Here is one from a Christian about the problems and successes of radiometric dating: http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/reliability.php

 

[Rivers]

Ok so let me stop you there real quick. Are you yet another person who is incapable of accepting radiometric dating? If so, please do some light reading on it from a CREDIBLE (.edu or .org, normally) source. It's not a question whether it works or not. You have to use the right method for the right situation though, as some isotopes break down every few thousand years and others break down in hundreds of millions.

Radiometric dating is based upon the assumption that rates of decay are constant over an indefinite period of time and that the material being dated has not been altered (among other factors). Thus, it is not as precise as advertised.

With that said, it makes no difference when interpreting the Genesis creation story because we know (from the biblical genealogies) that Genesis 1-3 took place about 6,000 BCE and over a period of (6) 24-hour days. From an exegetical standpoint, there's no other reasonable explanation of what the Hebrew writer was saying.

The issue in Genesis is not the date of the Creation, it is the interpretation of the story. I see no conflict because I don't think the Genesis creation was intended to describe a global or universal event. The writer indicated that he was referring to something that took place in the local region where the land of Eden was located (Genesis 2:8-14).

 

[Caino]

Again, this is all speculative. What we understand about the Genesis creation story must be derived from the use of the Hebrew language in which it was written (as we don't have any other options). It doesn't make any difference if the language supposedly pre-dated Moses or someone else wrote it.





Radiometric dating and the fossil record are also interpreted along the lines of certain presuppositions and the necessity of extrapolating data that cannot be scientifically verified. If there was nobody around to report the existence of the Solar System more than 20,000 years ago, then we cannot "prove" that it's any older.

There are also many things reported by ancient astronomers throughout the world that don't correspond to what modern scientists observe today. This should cause us to consider that scientific assumptions and applications to past history may not be valid.

If decay rates of isotopes are not predictable then you wouldn't want to live anywhere near a nuclear power plant.

I'm sorry Rivers, we've come to a fork in the road in this discussion, I'm going with common sense science.

Thanks

Caino

 

[Rivers]

If decay rates of isotopes are not predictable then you wouldn't want to live anywhere near a nuclear power plant.

I wasn't suggesting that the decay rates aren't measurable and predictable today. However, it doesn't logically follow that this means they were constant thousands of years ago. This is where you have to be careful with mathematics; it can describe what we observe but it can't dictate origins.

 

[Caino]

I wasn't suggesting that the decay rates aren't measurable and predictable today. However, it doesn't logically follow that this means they were constant thousands of years ago. This is where you have to be careful with mathematics; it can describe what we observe but it can't dictate origins.

Changing the laws of physics to suit the Hebrew priest's creation story is also something one should be carful about. But yea, the Jews have never been wrong about anything.

 

[Rivers]

In case you try to confuse it in Genesis ..... God outright says it here:

Exodus 20 KJV
(11) For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Yes, but "heaven" and "earth" in Genesis 1:8, 10 only referred to the "ground" and "sky" in the local area where the six-day creation took place (Genesis 2:8-14). In the ancient Hebrew language, the term "heavens and earth" didn't mean "the whole
universe."

 

[Rivers]

Changing the laws of physics to suit the Hebrew priest's creation story is also something one should be carful about. But yea, the Jews have never been wrong about anything.

Real "Physics" is based upon scientific observation (and shouldn't be confused with mathematical predictions and extrapolation). Nobody knows what Physics was like before there were any human beings to make scientific observations.

Assuming that the Earth is "billions of years old" on the basis of mathematical extrapolation (when human history may only go back 10,000-20,000 years) is as silly as trying to force the language in the Genesis creation story to explain the origin of the entire universe.

 

[Rivers]

Do you, by any chance, believe that the Universe is only six thousand years old? No. It means that the metaphorical interpretation of Genesis is to be considered to get into the spiritual realm of the Truth.

Those aren't the only options. A literal interpretation of the Genesis creation story (consistent with how the same ancient Hebrew vocabulary is used throughout the rest of scripture) makes perfectly good sense when one doesn't try to force it to have global or universal implications.

The ancient writer plainly identified the local region of Eden where the events took place (Genesis 2:8-14). These locators put the Creation in the region of the Jordan River valley and "between the Euphrates River and the river of Egypt" (Genesis 15:18).

 

[Silent Hunter]

Real "Physics" is based upon scientific observation (and shouldn't be confused with mathematical predictions and extrapolation).

Is Schrödinger's cat dead or alive?

Nobody knows what Physics was like before there were any human beings to make scientific observations.

So, the physical constants were different/random before there was anyone around to observe them? Such thinking is convenient for creationists (who define the attributes of their deity to suit whatever the circumstances call for) but not so for anyone possessing anything approaching sanity.

 

[6days]

...as silly as trying to force the language in the Genesis creation story to explain the origin of the entire universe.

Would it be heretical trying to force the language in scripture to mean something different than what is clearly said?

In six days, God made the heavens and the earth and everything in them. Jesus believed in Biblical creation... He associated humanity with the creation account and the very foundation of the world.*