Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Genesis 1:2 "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Let's discuss these two verses for starters. let's zero in on verse 2.
#1. Earth was a water ????????? do we really say planet? my question is, was earth a planet, as we define a planet, or not in the beginning. for the scripture stated, "WITHOUT FORM". so do we really identify earth as a planet in this beginning stage of development?
my second question, "was the sun actually shining, or was it even form yet. scripture stated, it was dark, no sunlight?. I have hear some scientist say the sun was formed but not yet shining, others, the sun formed but it was a thick cloud around the earth where no sunlight could penetrate to the surface.
for a general discussion we will start right at the beginning, with EARTH. I would like to hear the scientific side as well if any religious point of view.
thanks for your responses in advance.
The Creation Account, Another Look
Moderator: Moderators
Post #21
[Replying to post 20 by DeMotts]
first thanks for the reply, but I do appreciate, (as well as Other) this attempt. but I say hold your opinions for now and and let's just discuss the evidence in both worlds.
maybe we each might surprise each other.
first thanks for the reply, but I do appreciate, (as well as Other) this attempt. but I say hold your opinions for now and and let's just discuss the evidence in both worlds.
maybe we each might surprise each other.
-
William
- Savant
- Posts: 15242
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 974 times
- Been thanked: 1799 times
- Contact:
Re: The Creation Account, Another Look
Post #23[Replying to post 14 by 101G]
Correct. That is exactly why. First there is the formless, then there are the forms...the forms came later.
Correct. That is exactly why. First there is the formless, then there are the forms...the forms came later.
-
DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2719
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1645 times
Post #24
[Replying to post 19 by 101G]
Did you mean to write this sentence as you did? The creation story described in the bible IS scripture to those who believe the bible is a holy book. So naturally "scripture" would confirm the creation story that it, itself, describes.
Science, on the other hand, has proven beyond any doubt whatsoever that the creation story described in the bible is NOT literally how things happened ... especially when biblical chronology is taken into account.
Did you instead mean to claim that the creation account is confirmed by science? If so, then that can be debated and shown to be false (ie. science disproves any literal interpretation of the biblical creation myth). But saying that a scriptural creation account is confirmed by that same scripture is stating the obvious.
I believe science should be shouting for joy for that much of the creation account is confirm by scripture.
Did you mean to write this sentence as you did? The creation story described in the bible IS scripture to those who believe the bible is a holy book. So naturally "scripture" would confirm the creation story that it, itself, describes.
Science, on the other hand, has proven beyond any doubt whatsoever that the creation story described in the bible is NOT literally how things happened ... especially when biblical chronology is taken into account.
Did you instead mean to claim that the creation account is confirmed by science? If so, then that can be debated and shown to be false (ie. science disproves any literal interpretation of the biblical creation myth). But saying that a scriptural creation account is confirmed by that same scripture is stating the obvious.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
-
DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2719
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1645 times
Post #27
[Replying to post 26 by 101G]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day
And this seems consistent with the definition used by the humans who penned Genesis (1:5):
"And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."
A quick web search can provide that answer:I'm waiting on our science group to respond to Eph 2:8 question, "What’s the scientific definition of a day?".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day
And this seems consistent with the definition used by the humans who penned Genesis (1:5):
"And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
-
DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2719
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1645 times
Post #29
[Replying to post 25 by 101G]
What, exactly, do you mean by "go through the creation account"? Your OP only asks two questions ... can the earth be called a planet at some point within the genesis myth, and was the sun formed or "shining" at this time.
What science has shown is that the earth formed from the material surrounding the sun after the sun had formed. So the answer to your second question is yes ... the sun was formed and "shining" (emitting radiation) prior to the formation of anything resembling the earth. There is no doubt about this one.
Planets don't just pop into existence fully formed, but start small and build up their size over time. The biblical creation myth suggests that "God" just created the earth as a fully-formed planet essentially instantly, which we know is not how it happened. So your first question really has no answer as you have presented it, because you are assuming the biblical narrative is true and that the earth was created by a god, then asking whether or not it can be called a planet.
There are far too many problems with the genesis account of creation to even remotely consider it factual. A better approach may be to consider what we know to be true and then examine the creation myth in that context. For example, we know that the solar system, including the sun and earth, are about 4.6 billion years old. We know that life first appeared on earth some 4 billion years ago (give or take a few hundred million) and that modern humans (homo sapiens) didn't appear until roughly 300,000 years ago based on current understanding and findings, having evolved from earlier species going back to homo erectus and earlier bipedal apes. We know roughly when fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals appeared in the fossil record, and that human beings are only a very recent species. It is very easy to see, reading a summary such as this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution ... ry_of_life
that the biblical creation story is inconsistent with scientific understanding of how and when the sun and planets formed in our solar system, and how life diversified on this planet. It is impossible for the creation myth of genesis to be literally factual if the Wikipedia article linked above (or many others like it) is correct even generally. The two cannot be made consistent with each other without morphing the creation story to such an extent that it doesn't even remotely resemble itself. What is the point of doing that?
well let's see if what U say holds up as we go through the creation account...
What, exactly, do you mean by "go through the creation account"? Your OP only asks two questions ... can the earth be called a planet at some point within the genesis myth, and was the sun formed or "shining" at this time.
What science has shown is that the earth formed from the material surrounding the sun after the sun had formed. So the answer to your second question is yes ... the sun was formed and "shining" (emitting radiation) prior to the formation of anything resembling the earth. There is no doubt about this one.
Planets don't just pop into existence fully formed, but start small and build up their size over time. The biblical creation myth suggests that "God" just created the earth as a fully-formed planet essentially instantly, which we know is not how it happened. So your first question really has no answer as you have presented it, because you are assuming the biblical narrative is true and that the earth was created by a god, then asking whether or not it can be called a planet.
There are far too many problems with the genesis account of creation to even remotely consider it factual. A better approach may be to consider what we know to be true and then examine the creation myth in that context. For example, we know that the solar system, including the sun and earth, are about 4.6 billion years old. We know that life first appeared on earth some 4 billion years ago (give or take a few hundred million) and that modern humans (homo sapiens) didn't appear until roughly 300,000 years ago based on current understanding and findings, having evolved from earlier species going back to homo erectus and earlier bipedal apes. We know roughly when fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals appeared in the fossil record, and that human beings are only a very recent species. It is very easy to see, reading a summary such as this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution ... ry_of_life
that the biblical creation story is inconsistent with scientific understanding of how and when the sun and planets formed in our solar system, and how life diversified on this planet. It is impossible for the creation myth of genesis to be literally factual if the Wikipedia article linked above (or many others like it) is correct even generally. The two cannot be made consistent with each other without morphing the creation story to such an extent that it doesn't even remotely resemble itself. What is the point of doing that?
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
