Genesis 1 made more sensible and scientific

[6days]

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."

Your false belief system leads you to twist and distort scripture...which ultimately destroys the gospel.*

Before looking at scripture you mention, lets look at a bit of dishonesty in your argument. *You say "In the ancient Hebrew language, the term "heavens and earth" didn't mean "the whole*
universe."". *'Ancient Hebrew' is not that different from English. *The word earth can mean a handful of dirt...or our whole *planet...and a variety of other meanings, but understood by context.
Likewise with the word heavens.

Lets look at Gen. 1:8, 10 to see if it says its a local area, as Greg claims.
Gen. 1:8*"And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day." (KJV)*
There is no suggestion in that verse that 'heaven' is just the sky in a local area. When we see verse 14, we *know Greg is inserting secular ideas into scripture. Verse 14 is clearly not just the local sky.
Gen. 1:14 "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"

Now, lets see if verse 10 refers to only a local area as Greg claims...
Gen. 1:10 *"God called*the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters*he called “seas.”*And God saw that it was good." We could look at other scripture but the context in this verse is enough.*

 

[Silent Hunter]

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

If the Jewish creation myth had been written in English, (which every biblical scholar agrees it was not), you might, just barely, have a point.

If the Jewish creation myth had been written in English to an English speaking/reading audience, (which every biblical scholar agrees it was not), you might, just barely, have a point.

If the Jewish creation myth had been written in English to an English speaking/reading audience, who understood the myth in anything other than a Jewish culture (which every biblical scholar agrees it was not), you might, just barely, have a point.

So, what's your point?

 

[Rivers]

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.*

You're missing what "heavens and earth" meant in the biblical context. Please take some time to research the use of the terms if you want to understand God's word.

The "six days" doesn't refer to the creation of the entire universe. According to scripture, it pertained only to the region of Eden where Adam and Eve lived (Genesis 2:8-14). This is no conflict with Exodus 20:11.

 

[Rivers]

If the Jewish creation myth had been written in English to an English speaking/reading audience, who understood the myth in anything other than a Jewish culture (which every biblical scholar agrees it was not), you might, just barely, have a point.

The idea of a "Jewish culture" is a misnomer. How do you know what the ancient Hebrews believed other than what they wrote in their own words?

Moreover, do you realize that Jewish people had many different ideas about creation and other theological issues just like we do today? Are you the one who gets to decide which ancient Jew speaks for the entire "culture"?

 

[Wick Stick]

The idea of a "Jewish culture" is a fallacy.

There is no Jewish culture? Wow! Maybe you wanna take that one back down a few notches, so you don't sound like some kind of fascist...

How do you know what the ancient Hebrews believed other than what they wrote in their own words?

That's silly - we DO have their words. Unless you want to do something stupid... like constraining those words only to what is written in the Bible... it's fairly easy to discern the culture by building on what is written using period literature, archaeology, anthropology, linguistics, etc.

Moreover, do you realize that Jewish people had many different ideas about creation and other theological issues just like we do today? Are you the one who gets to decide which ancient Jew speaks for the entire "culture"?

It should be fairly obvious which Jew speaks for the entire culture - Moses. Therefore, the best interpretation is that which is closest to the author's original intent.

Finally, you have my sympathies dealing with 6days. He's just an idiot. No amount of logic or explanation will help him, because he doesn't want help. He thinks he's God and has all the answers.

 

[Rivers]

There is no Jewish culture? Wow! Maybe you wanna take that one back down a few notches, so you don't sound like some kind of fascist...

As I noted earlier, the idea that a "Jewish culture" supposedly supports any particular interpretation of scripture is a fallacy. Ancient Jewish "culture" was comprised of dozens of languages and numerous conflicting religious ideas and practices.

That's silly - we DO have their words. Unless you want to do something stupid... like constraining those words only to what is written in the Bible... it's fairly easy to discern the culture by building on what is written using period literature, archaeology, anthropology, linguistics, etc.

What it seems you're overlooking is that the apostolic writings are not corroborated by any other contemporary Jewish or Romans documents. We wouldn't know anything about Jesus except for what is preserved in the canonical scriptures. Moreover, Jesus and the apostles repudiated the Jewish leaders of their own generation and were claiming that they had received exclusive divine revelation.

It should be fairly obvious which Jew speaks for the entire culture - Moses. Therefore, the best interpretation is that which is closest to the author's original intent.

Yes, that's the point. The best interpretation must be derived from the biblical writer's own words (and not what other Jewish people who knew nothing about Christianity said). However, it's not accurate to claim that "Moses speaks for the entire culture" because the even the biblical evidence shows that not all Jews understood Moses the say way (i.e. Pharisees, Sadduccees, Grecian Jews, etc).

Finally, you have my sympathies dealing with 6days. He's just an idiot. No amount of logic or explanation will help him, because he doesn't want help. He thinks he's God and has all the answers.

Yes, he seems like a fanatic. I'm just trying to be patient and point out some things that he hasn't thought about before. But, it's not my responsibility to change anyone's mind. We should all consider the evidence for ourselves and make up our own minds.

 

[Silent Hunter]

The idea of a "Jewish culture" is a fallacy.

The word you're looking for here is "misnomer".

How do you know what the ancient Hebrews believed other than what they wrote in their own words?

That is sort of my point. 6days thinks the King James Version is the definitive, user friendly, infallible "word" of his particular understanding of the Hebrew deity. What they Jewish authors wrote, in the language they wrote, cannot be understood in 21st Century parlance, something 6days can't seem to grasp.

Moreover, do you realize that Jewish people had many different ideas about creation and other theological issues just like we do today?

Of course I do, Pharasee, Saducee, Essen, Proton Christian, etc.

Are you the one who gets to decide which ancient Jew speaks for the entire "culture"?

No, but 6days thinks HE does.

 

[Rivers]

The word you're looking for here is "misnomer".

Thanks.

 

[6days]

If the (Old Testament) had been written in English, (which every biblical scholar agrees it was not), you might, just barely, have a point.

WHAT??? *Can you name a single scholar who denies that Moses wrote the Bible in English?

 

[6days]

You're missing what "heavens and earth" meant in the biblical context.

It does not need your explanation and compromise. When God placed the stars in tbe heavens... its easy to understand. Its also easy to believe.*

The "six days" doesn't refer to the creation of the entire universe.

Of course it does. *Jesus placed humanity there from the foundation of the world.

According to scripture, it pertained only to the region of Eden where Adam and Eve lived (Genesis 2:8-14). This is no conflict with Exodus 20:11.

Of course Genesis does not conflict with Exodus. Your rejection of what Genesis clearly says, conflicts with all scripture and the Gospel message.

 

[Wick Stick]

As I noted earlier, the idea that a "Jewish culture" supposedly supports any particular interpretation of scripture is a fallacy. Ancient Jewish "culture" was comprised of dozens of languages and numerous conflicting religious ideas and practices.

I respectfully disagree, not out of ignorance, but possibly from defining words differently.

When you speak of a "particular interpretation of scripture," it appears to me you're talking about what I would call systematic theology (e.g. covenant theology, dispensational theology, etc).

Interpretations of scripture are dime a dozen, there are thousands upon thousands of them, and many of them ARE informed by a knowledge of the manners and customs of the peoples dwelling in the Ancient Near East in the Bronze and Iron ages. If you don't think so, then I would question whether you've studied the topic at all.

What it seems you're overlooking is that the apostolic writings are not corroborated by any other contemporary Jewish or Romans documents. We wouldn't know anything about Jesus except for what is preserved in the canonical scriptures. Moreover, Jesus and the apostles repudiated the Jewish leaders of their own generation and were claiming that they had received exclusive divine revelation.

Uh... not true.

There are many non-canonical works of the early church. It's just that the modern church is quick to dismiss them (non-canon! gasp!) and the naysayers of Christianity are in no hurry to point them out. Secret Mark, the gospel of Thomas, the Acts of Peter and Paul, and so on and so on...

Yes, that's the point. The best interpretation must be derived from the biblical writer's own words (and not what other Jewish people who knew nothing about Christianity said). However, it's not accurate to claim that "Moses speaks for the entire culture" because the even the biblical evidence shows that not all Jews understood Moses the say way (i.e. Pharisees, Sadduccees, Grecian Jews, etc).

The 'disagreement' you point out is a keystone of Jewish culture. Shall I explain? Hillelites and Shammaites "disagreed" on everything by design, and the competing positions they took were so close to each other than when we look back on them, they seem trivial. They considered each other not enemies, but friends, and 'the loyal opposition.'

This is done for several ends. Firstly, the controversy excites the minds and engages the audience - iron sharpens iron. Secondly, by presenting the audience with two options which are similar and palatable to everyone, it all but guarantees that the people take one of those positions. But, BOTH positions agree with Moses.

 

[6days]

hat is sort of my point. 6days thinks the King James Version is the definitive, user friendly, infallible "word" of his particular understanding of the Hebrew deity

You and GC must have got together and decided to see who could tell the biggest whopper.*
Sorry Hunter but I think GC wins

BTW.... I don't normally use KJV. I did use it because it uses the same words in a verse that Rivers used. (In Gen. 1:8). Many modern translations use different words.*

 

[Silent Hunter]

You and GC must have got together and decided to see who could tell the biggest whopper.*
Sorry Hunter but I think GC wins

Really? I think your lies outclass the Clinton's.

BTW.... I don't normally use KJV. I did use it because it uses the same words in a verse that Rivers used. (In Gen. 1:8). Many modern translations use different words.*

So? You use an English translation don't you? When you learn to read Hebrew and quit using a 21st Century mindset to understand 1st Century BC/AD mythology let us know. Until then you will be as wrong on this as you are on pretty much everything else.

 

[Stripe]

Even the atheists don't want the Bible to mean what it plainly says.

 

[Caino]

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.

Assuming??? Human history goes back a million years and before that is the history of the dawn mammals. You are confusing the creation story of the Hebrew priest, for an Israelite audience, with real history.

And yes, we do know what physics was like before human observation, we can look deeper and deeper into the past using telescopes that detect the constants of light. What we see is physics behaving the same way in the past as it does today.

 

[Rivers]

Uh... not true.

There are many non-canonical works of the early church. It's just that the modern church is quick to dismiss them (non-canon! gasp!) and the naysayers of Christianity are in no hurry to point them out. Secret Mark, the gospel of Thomas, the Acts of Peter and Paul, and so on and so on...

None of these non-canonical "works of the early church" are contemporary to the apostolic era. That was my point (which is true). Even Josephus and the Roman historians of that era mention nothing about Jesus or the apostles.

The 'disagreement' you point out is a keystone of Jewish culture. Shall I explain? Hillelites and Shammaites "disagreed" on everything by design, and the competing positions they took were so close to each other than when we look back on them, they seem trivial. They considered each other not enemies, but friends, and 'the loyal opposition.'

This is done for several ends. Firstly, the controversy excites the minds and engages the audience - iron sharpens iron. Secondly, by presenting the audience with two options which are similar and palatable to everyone, it all but guarantees that the people take one of those positions. But, BOTH positions agree with Moses.

I think this supports my earlier point.

It's common today for scholars to make selective appeals to particular sources that they claim represent "the Jewish culture" or "the Hebrew mindset" as if it was some kind of unified theological perspective that should constrain the interpretation of what Jesus was teaching (which the apostles explicitly claimed did not originate from the theological milieu of the contemporary Jewish leaders).

 

[Rivers]

Assuming??? Human history goes back a million years and before that is the history of the dawn mammals. You are confusing the creation story of the Hebrew priest, for an Israelite audience, with real history.

There is no evidence that human history "goes back a million years." Keep in mind, "history" only refers to what is actually recorded by human beings. Speculation about geological formations and fossil evidence is not "history." Mathematical equations are not "Physics" either.

And yes, we do know what physics was like before human observation, we can look deeper and deeper into the past using telescopes that detect the constants of light. What we see is physics behaving the same way in the past as it does today.

Why do you still think "light" and gravity are "constants"? I don't think you're up to date with the latest astronomical observations. We are beginning to move beyond the mistaken assumptions that Einstein made. The observable evidence will no longer sustain the idea that those constants are valid.

Doppler's calculations have also been proven erroneous. There are numerous objects in deep space with different red shift values that are physically connected. We no longer have any reason to think that the universe is expanding.

 

[Rivers]

Of course it does. *Jesus placed humanity there from the foundation of the world.

I think you fail to understand that the term "world" (Grk. KOSMOS) that Jesus used doesn't mean "universe" either. It refers to an organization of people. For example, the "world" destroyed by the Noahic flood was not the whole universe (2 Peter 3:5).

Another thing you're missing is that "foundation of the world" also did not refer to the time of the Genesis creation when it was used by Jesus. For example, in Matthew 25:34, Jesus spoke of "the kingdom" synonymously with "the world" and there was no "kingdom" prepared until the nation of Israel was established after the Israelites were delivered from Egypt a couple thousand years after the Genesis creation (Exodus 19:6).

 

[6days]

I think you fail to understand that the term "world" (Grk. KOSMOS) that Jesus used doesn't mean "universe" either. It refers to an organization of people.

Nonsense Rivers. Jesus connected the foundations of the world to the time of first people. Genesis tells us that people were created 2 days after the stars... 5 days after the universe.
Your gymnastics performed on scripture destroys the purpose of Christ's death

 

[Rivers]

Nonsense Rivers. Jesus connected the foundations of the world to the time of first people. Genesis tells us that people were created 2 days after the stars... 5 days after the universe.
Your gymnastics performed on scripture destroys the purpose of Christ's death

You are merely asserting your own belief. You can't provide any biblical basis for your interpretation of "the foundation of the world." I've just shown you how Jesus used the term differently than you do.

I've also show you from scripture why your definition of "world" is not biblical. You can't seem to provide any exegetical evidence to support your definition of this term (KOSMOS) either. Apparently, you've been duped by some religious paradigm that you learned elsewhere.