Genesis 1:1

David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Genesis 1:1

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Genesis 1:1

In the beginning comes from the Hebrew Bere shith, the word Genesis comes from the Greek Septuagint meaning "birth; origin." Science agrees that the universe had a sudden beginning and must ponder the cause of such an effect.

Bible scholars agree that the creation mentioned in verse 1 is separate from the “days” or periods of creation mentioned in verse 3. This means that the universe and planet earth existed an indefinite period of time before the days of creation began. The Bible doesn’t specify the age of the heavens and earth. All of this means that no matter what science estimates as the age of the universe and planet earth, there is no contradiction here with science and the Bible.

Agnostic astronomer Robert Jastrow - “The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.”

Ancient writings from Babylon and Egypt reveal gods who were given birth after the universe was already created. They have nothing to say of the universe being created, as the Bible does.

Of significance here is the use of the Hebrew word Elohim, God. It is the plural form denoting majesty or excellence. (See NAB, St. Joseph Edition, Bible Dictionary, p. 330; New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. V, p. 287) Trinitarians often use the plurality in support of the trinity, but a form of Elohim is used with the singular verb at Judges 16:23 in application to Dagon meaning Elohim is a plural showing majesty rather than a numerical application to three gods in one.

The Hebrew verb for “created” here is in the perfect state, signifying completion. The creation was finished at this point. This is important when considering the verses that follow. The heavens had been created at this point, including the sun and moon and stars.
 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
So your view is that it was

So your view is that it was already perfectly created and the other verses are simply descriptive of what he created?

Shame he had to break it in the Garden of Eden, huh?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:So your view

jcgadfly wrote:

So your view is that it was already perfectly created and the other verses are simply descriptive of what he created?

Shame he had to break it in the Garden of Eden, huh?

 

No, in verse 1 the heavens and earth were created, later, during the "days" or periods of creation he would make them or appoint them as in making them suitable for habitation. Think of it like a bed. A bed is created or manufactured and later the bed is made in another sense. To make a bed in the later sense is different than the former. This will become more clear in later posts on Genesis.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:jcgadfly

David Henson wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

So your view is that it was already perfectly created and the other verses are simply descriptive of what he created?

Shame he had to break it in the Garden of Eden, huh?

 

No, in verse 1 the heavens and earth were created, later, during the "days" or periods of creation he would make them or appoint them as in making them suitable for habitation. Think of it like a bed. A bed is created or manufactured and later the bed is made in another sense. To make a bed in the later sense is different than the former. This will become more clear in later posts on Genesis.

When did the sun and moon become habitable? They have their own verses describing their creation.

A bed doesn't need sheets, pillows and other accoutrements to be slept on. Your analogy doesn't work too well.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2376
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
David Henson

 

 

 

                There is onr great question I have since you are citing Genises 1:1  ; could I move you along slightly to Genises 1:3 -4. "God said let there be light, and there was, to devide the darkness from the day. And the evening and the morning were the first day."   Since the Sun and moon do not show up untill the fourth day,  where did this light come from and where did it go to?

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick

Jeffrick wrote:

 

 

 

                There is one great question I have since you are citing Genesis 1:1  ; could I move you along slightly to Genesis 1:3 -4. "God said let there be light, and there was, to divide the darkness from the day. And the evening and the morning were the first day."   Since the Sun and moon do not show up until the fourth day,  where did this light come from and where did it go to?

You are kind of jumping ahead of me. Concentrating on Genesis 1:1, the creation there is complete. The heavens and Earth were complete. That includes the sun. The luminaries were there before the first creative day.

 

 


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 Ah, Davids back.  Did you

 Ah, Davids back.  Did you give it a good shake?

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2376
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
David Henson

 

 

 

                Going from Genises 1:1 all the way to Genises 1:4 is not that big a jump.  If you sir hold a theistic belief based on what  is written in the bible, that belief has to include all the bible with all its contridictions. Otherwise you are what we ( and meny theists) call a cafateria christian.

 

 

                

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick

Jeffrick wrote:
                Going from Genises 1:1 all the way to Genises 1:4 is not that big a jump.  If you sir hold a theistic belief based on what  is written in the bible, that belief has to include all the bible with all its contridictions. Otherwise you are what we ( and meny theists) call a cafateria christian.

 

Did you notice that I answered your question? Lets say that my plan is to consider a verse a day. Genesis 1:4 would naturally follow. Give me three days.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

 Ah, Davids back.  Did you give it a good shake?

Thank you, Ian.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:Jeffrick

David Henson wrote:

Jeffrick wrote:
                Going from Genises 1:1 all the way to Genises 1:4 is not that big a jump.  If you sir hold a theistic belief based on what  is written in the bible, that belief has to include all the bible with all its contridictions. Otherwise you are what we ( and meny theists) call a cafateria christian.

 

Did you notice that I answered your question? Lets say that my plan is to consider a verse a day. Genesis 1:4 would naturally follow. Give me three days.

Not when you can't get past the problems in v.1.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Not when you

jcgadfly wrote:
Not when you can't get past the problems in v.1.

 

As far as I can tell, there are no problems that haven't been addressed. Have I missed something?


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Your insistence that the

Your insistence that the sun, moon, stars and earth were created before they were created according to the story is a good start. Do the words mean only what you think they should mean or something?

It's quite a leap to jump from "the universe had a beginning" to "God was its beginning", isn't it?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Hey David, welcome

Hey David, welcome back!

 

One time my three year old daughter said there were little tiny things in her room.  I take this to mean she has a miraculous understanding of germ theory, atomic theory and fully grasps the implications of quantum theory in regards to a multiverse.

I win!  I'll let you know if she confirms any other Truth in her deceptively simple comments about what we eat for dinner tonight.  Yesterday she said she wanted some water and I started a paper on fluid dynamics (I'll see you at the Nobel Prize ceremony!).

---------------

In case my sarcasm was too thick there, this type of conversation isn't any more fruitful than Biblical numerology or talking to someone who believes Nostradamus really predicted the future.  The entire idea is predicated on taking something you already 'know' and scanning modern science to find things that can be co-opted to serve your assumptions.

For example, I can 'know' that my daughter is a uber savant and a prophetess.  Anything she says can be twisted into re-enforcing that 'knowledge'. (Edit, she totally is, by the way.)

If this stuff was real it wouldn't work in that bass-ackwards way, instead you'd have scientists looking at the Bible and using it to make predictions about reality that are then tested and proved.  I can't think of a single, credible cosmological argument that has a Bible passage as a hypothesis.

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Your

jcgadfly wrote:

Your insistence that the sun, moon, stars and earth were created before they were created according to the story is a good start. Do the words mean only what you think they should mean or something?

It's quite a leap to jump from "the universe had a beginning" to "God was its beginning", isn't it?

 

Ah, now I see . . . a typical threat to scientific interpretation. Lets leave it at that.

 

To reiterate. According to Genesis 1:1, and the perfect state of the Hebrew word translted there as create, the heavens, including the luminaries, were complete. Later we will see that the imperfect state is used in regards to the matter which SHOULD, but won't clear up the confussion.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Hey David,

mellestad wrote:

Hey David, welcome back!

Hey, Mel, thanks! Good to see you - proverbially.

 

mellestad wrote:
One time my three year old daughter said there were little tiny things in her room.  I take this to mean she has a miraculous understanding of germ theory, atomic theory and fully grasps the implications of quantum theory in regards to a multiverse.

I win!  I'll let you know if she confirms any other Truth in her deceptively simple comments about what we eat for dinner tonight.  Yesterday she said she wanted some water and I started a paper on fluid dynamics (I'll see you at the Nobel Prize ceremony!).

---------------

In case my sarcasm was too thick there, this type of conversation isn't any more fruitful than Biblical numerology or talking to someone who believes Nostradamus really predicted the future.  The entire idea is predicated on taking something you already 'know' and scanning modern science to find things that can be co-opted to serve your assumptions.

For example, I can 'know' that my daughter is a uber savant and a prophetess.  Anything she says can be twisted into re-enforcing that 'knowledge'. (Edit, she totally is, by the way.)

If this stuff was real it wouldn't work in that bass-ackwards way, instead you'd have scientists looking at the Bible and using it to make predictions about reality that are then tested and proved.  I can't think of a single, credible cosmological argument that has a Bible passage as a hypothesis.

 

 

We will see what we will see.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:jcgadfly

David Henson wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Your insistence that the sun, moon, stars and earth were created before they were created according to the story is a good start. Do the words mean only what you think they should mean or something?

It's quite a leap to jump from "the universe had a beginning" to "God was its beginning", isn't it?

 

Ah, now I see . . . a typical threat to scientific interpretation. Lets leave it at that.

 

To reiterate. According to Genesis 1:1, and the perfect state of the Hebrew word translted there as create, the heavens, including the luminaries, were complete. Later we will see that the imperfect state is used in regards to the matter which SHOULD, but won't clear up the confussion.

Yes, you should quit threatening that the Bible is a scientific interpretation of anything.

The stars were created before the light they generate was created? Really? Can you have luminaries without light?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:mellestad

David Henson wrote:

mellestad wrote:

Hey David, welcome back!

Hey, Mel, thanks! Good to see you - proverbially.

 

mellestad wrote:
One time my three year old daughter said there were little tiny things in her room.  I take this to mean she has a miraculous understanding of germ theory, atomic theory and fully grasps the implications of quantum theory in regards to a multiverse.

I win!  I'll let you know if she confirms any other Truth in her deceptively simple comments about what we eat for dinner tonight.  Yesterday she said she wanted some water and I started a paper on fluid dynamics (I'll see you at the Nobel Prize ceremony!).

---------------

In case my sarcasm was too thick there, this type of conversation isn't any more fruitful than Biblical numerology or talking to someone who believes Nostradamus really predicted the future.  The entire idea is predicated on taking something you already 'know' and scanning modern science to find things that can be co-opted to serve your assumptions.

For example, I can 'know' that my daughter is a uber savant and a prophetess.  Anything she says can be twisted into re-enforcing that 'knowledge'. (Edit, she totally is, by the way.)

If this stuff was real it wouldn't work in that bass-ackwards way, instead you'd have scientists looking at the Bible and using it to make predictions about reality that are then tested and proved.  I can't think of a single, credible cosmological argument that has a Bible passage as a hypothesis.

 

 

We will see what we will see.

I'll await the inrush of ground breaking scientific papers with titles corresponding to Bible verses.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Yes, you

jcgadfly wrote:

Yes, you should quit threatening that the Bible is a scientific interpretation of anything.

The stars were created before the light they generate was created? Really? Can you have luminaries without light?

Patience, grasshopper.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:jcgadfly

David Henson wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Yes, you should quit threatening that the Bible is a scientific interpretation of anything.

The stars were created before the light they generate was created? Really? Can you have luminaries without light?

Patience, grasshopper.

I look forward to this version of "What God really meant was..."

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
We're discussing one verse

We're discussing one verse at a time? It's going to take forever to get anywhere.

David Henson wrote:
Bible scholars agree that the creation mentioned in verse 1 is separate from the “days” or periods of creation mentioned in verse 3. This means that the universe and planet earth existed an indefinite period of time before the days of creation began.

More evidence beyond wishful thinking and grasping at the straws of an unjustified claim based on the the weasel words, "Bible scholars agree," please.

Can we move on to 1:2 now?

"Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."

What does formless mean? How can a planet be formless? What does empty mean? What does "darkness was over the surface of the deep" mean? These are all ambiguous and scientifically inept statements. I suppose the Spirit of God avoids the force of gravity with his godly magic?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4438
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:In the

David Henson wrote:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Genesis 1:1

In the beginning comes from the Hebrew Bere shith, the word Genesis comes from the Greek Septuagint meaning "birth; origin." Science agrees that the universe had a sudden beginning and must ponder the cause of such an effect.

Bible scholars agree that the creation mentioned in verse 1 is separate from the “days” or periods of creation mentioned in verse 3. This means that the universe and planet earth existed an indefinite period of time before the days of creation began. The Bible doesn’t specify the age of the heavens and earth. All of this means that no matter what science estimates as the age of the universe and planet earth, there is no contradiction here with science and the Bible.

Nice spin. Have you considered a career in politics? So god created the universe and then put it on a shelf for an indefinite period before sitting down and finishing it in six days. My Grandma used to do the same thing when she was knitting. 

 

David Henson wrote:

Ancient writings from Babylon and Egypt reveal gods who were given birth after the universe was already created. They have nothing to say of the universe being created, as the Bible does.

Because when they were creating those religions one priest said to the other, "C'mon, even those idiots won't believe the gods created the universe" Who knew he was wrong?

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:David Henson

jcgadfly wrote:

David Henson wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Yes, you should quit threatening that the Bible is a scientific interpretation of anything.

The stars were created before the light they generate was created? Really? Can you have luminaries without light?

Patience, grasshopper.

I look forward to this version of "What God really meant was..."

One doesn't have to look at it that way. I wouldn't ask Atheists Etc. to do that. All you have to do is look at what it says, paying closer attention to the original languages and then see where it gets fucked up from there. If it is my presentation or interpretation or whatever thats fucked tell me why.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:We're

butterbattle wrote:

We're discussing one verse at a time? It's going to take forever to get anywhere.

Are you new at Theist / Atheist debate and discussion? 'Cause from my perspective its all about gettning nowhere fast.

[Looks around . . . nods]

David Henson wrote:
Bible scholars agree that the creation mentioned in verse 1 is separate from the “days” or periods of creation mentioned in verse 3. This means that the universe and planet earth existed an indefinite period of time before the days of creation began.

butterbattle wrote:
More evidence beyond wishful thinking and grasping at the straws of an unjustified claim based on the the weasel words, "Bible scholars agree," please.

 

Its about the language, you see? The create in Genesis, according to the Hebrew, was in the perfect state. It was complete. Later a different Hebrew term is used which is in the imperfect state indicating action in progress. The imperfect state is used over 40 times in the creation acount. Very important.

butterbattle wrote:
Can we move on to 1:2 now?

"Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."

What does formless mean? How can a planet be formless? What does empty mean? What does "darkness was over the surface of the deep" mean? These are all ambiguous and scientifically inept statements. I suppose the Spirit of God avoids the force of gravity with his godly magic?

Formless? Means landless. A formless planet is a water planet. Darkness implies difused light at an early stage which we get to later.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Hold on just a second.  So,

Hold on just a second.  So, planets form land first, water second.  In fact, the whole process of going from matter, to conglomerate, to planetoid, to cooled planet, to getting surface features, liquid water, atmosphere, etc, etc. is all somewhat specific.  Are you trying to make the Genesis story match reality, or are you just going over the language in detail for personal edification?

I want to know how argumentative I should be.

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Hold on just

mellestad wrote:

Hold on just a second.  So, planets form land first, water second.  In fact, the whole process of going from matter, to conglomerate, to planetoid, to cooled planet, to getting surface features, liquid water, atmosphere, etc, etc. is all somewhat specific.  Are you trying to make the Genesis story match reality, or are you just going over the language in detail for personal edification?

I want to know how argumentative I should be.

 

Be as argumentative as you need be, buddy. What I am trying to do is inform you all in greater detail about what the Bible says. I sense that, considering the usual ignorant babble y'all spew regarding the subject on a daily basis, you need that special attention.

As for reality; well that is any ones guess and aside from the challenge of educating in light of the aforementioned blatant ignorance I get no kicks out of this.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:mellestad

David Henson wrote:

mellestad wrote:

Hold on just a second.  So, planets form land first, water second.  In fact, the whole process of going from matter, to conglomerate, to planetoid, to cooled planet, to getting surface features, liquid water, atmosphere, etc, etc. is all somewhat specific.  Are you trying to make the Genesis story match reality, or are you just going over the language in detail for personal edification?

I want to know how argumentative I should be.

 

Be as argumentative as you need be, buddy. What I am trying to do is inform you all in greater detail about what the Bible says. I sense that, considering the usual ignorant babble y'all spew regarding the subject on a daily basis, you need that special attention.

As for reality; well that is any ones guess and aside from the challenge of educating in light of the aforementioned blatant ignorance I get no kicks out of this.

Ok, cool.

 

If you aren't trying to apply the verses to reality I don't really have an interest, so I'll leave the bickering to people like you and PaulJohn.  

I only perk up when someone says, "The world is so, because the Bible says such-and-such."  If that statement doesn't match objective reality then I bicker.  Well...unless I'm really super bored I guess, then I might bicker about word meanings.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Ok,

mellestad wrote:
Ok, cool.

 

If you aren't trying to apply the verses to reality I don't really have an interest, so I'll leave the bickering to people like you and PaulJohn.  

I only perk up when someone says, "The world is so, because the Bible says such-and-such."  If that statement doesn't match objective reality then I bicker.  Well...unless I'm really super bored I guess, then I might bicker about word meanings.

 

How . . . religious of you, Mel. Where is the fun in that? Surely you didn't expect me to come here and cozy up to your sense of reality, did you?

'Ows this, then? The world isn't only six thousand years old because the Bible doesn't say it is. Doesn't make any more sense, does it? You see? The problem is that you probably think it does say that. And you are wrong. That is the reality of it.

Like Bob Dylan once said. "The truth is a plain picture!"


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
If religion is a lack if

If religion is a lack if interest then...I guess?

 

I've never thought the Bible said the world is six thousand years old, I've only thought that certain theists use calculations involving genealogy in the Bible to assume that age.

I honestly try not to tell theists what the Bible says, because for most theists the interpretation of the Bible is subjective to whatever they already believe.  When I do use the Bible, I try to use it at the level of the theist I'm talking to.  If a fundamentalist protestant wants to argue young earth theory and yak about anti-evolution stuff, I'll use the Bible like they use it.  If someone wants to debate the Hebrew meaning of wind...I'll let someone who cares mess with it.

 

The Bible isn't central to my world-view or atheism either way, however it *is* central to the world-view and theism of many people who post here, which is why it comes up so often.  You yourself know you don't agree with most of the theists about Biblical interpretation.

To take this to *your* specific case, if you want to debate the existence of a water canopy I wouldn't even use the Bible, because it isn't relevant besides being the source of a silly idea.  I can't prove or disprove canopy theory using the Bible because it has no objective standing to a claim of that kind, I have to use something more objective.

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:If religion

mellestad wrote:

If religion is a lack if interest then...I guess?

Religion is a strict adherance to belief. Disbelief is a belief, not to mention a world view.

 

mellestad wrote:
I've never thought the Bible said the world is six thousand years old, I've only thought that certain theists use calculations involving genealogy in the Bible to assume that age.

I honestly try not to tell theists what the Bible says, because for most theists the interpretation of the Bible is subjective to whatever they already believe.  When I do use the Bible, I try to use it at the level of the theist I'm talking to.  If a fundamentalist protestant wants to argue young earth theory and yak about anti-evolution stuff, I'll use the Bible like they use it.  If someone wants to debate the Hebrew meaning of wind...I'll let someone who cares mess with it.

 

The Bible isn't central to my world-view or atheism either way, however it *is* central to the world-view and theism of many people who post here, which is why it comes up so often.  You yourself know you don't agree with most of the theists about Biblical interpretation.

To take this to *your* specific case, if you want to debate the existence of a water canopy I wouldn't even use the Bible, because it isn't relevant besides being the source of a silly idea.  I can't prove or disprove canopy theory using the Bible because it has no objective standing to a claim of that kind, I have to use something more objective.

 

I think that what you are expressing is simply what you and I have in common and both well know. You can't debate science with people who have very little interest or knowledge on the subject and you can't do the same with the Bible. We bump not swords but shields.

 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:Are you

David Henson wrote:

Are you new at Theist / Atheist debate and discussion? 'Cause from my perspective its all about gettning nowhere fast.

[Looks around . . . nods]

Lol, yeah. Just like this discussion you've started.

David Henson wrote:
Its about the language, you see? The create in Genesis, according to the Hebrew, was in the perfect state. It was complete. Later a different Hebrew term is used which is in the imperfect state indicating action in progress. The imperfect state is used over 40 times in the creation acount. Very important.

Okay, how does this apply to your naked assertion that Genesis 1 just describes God tweaking a universe that he already created?

David Henson wrote:
Formless? Means landless. A formless planet is a water planet.

Really? Why doesn't the Bible just say that's what it means so you don't have to pull it out of your ***. Let me guess, you're going to assert that in the original language, it unambiguously referred to a planet covered in water?

The Earth is a terrestrial planet; it can only be "landless" to the extent that the entire surface is covered in water. So, this is some arbitrary moment in the Earth's history when it was covered in water? 

David Henson wrote:
Darkness implies difused light at an early stage which we get to later.

Lol, so now the term "darkness" is actually referring to diffusion of photons? You have any evidence?  

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:We bump

David Henson wrote:
We bump not swords but shields.

Yeah, Mell, you're so confrontational. Stop bumping people.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Butterbattle,  The case of

Butterbattle,

 

The case of Genesis 1:1 is easy. It says, in English, that God created the heavens and Earth.

The Hebrew verb has two states, the perfect and the imperfect state. The perfect state, like the case of bara indicates completed action. Created, in Genesis 1:1, is a completed action.

James Washington Watts, in his A Distinctive Translation of Genesis, Grand Rapids, Michigan (1963), pp. 129, 130: “The fundamental characteristic of all imperfects is incompleteness . . . . The incompleteness of these imperfects, when they are in the indicative mood, appears either in a progressive form or a frequentative form. The context is relied upon to indicate one or the other, for the structure of the verb is the same in both cases.

“If the context indicates a single act or state, the force is progressive. The action is pictured in the process of development. In such case the primary idea of the verb in English is not sufficient to convey its full meaning. The addition of an auxiliary like ‘proceed’ or an adverb like ‘gradually’ is needed if the translator sees an occasion for bringing out the full force. When a narrative is unfolding rapidly and the sequence of events is more important than the vivid portrayal of progress in some particular event, the translator may depend solely upon conjunctive adverbs like ‘afterward’ to indicate both sequence and progress. Progress in this case is not brought out fully. There is merely movement from one action or state to another without definite portrayal of progress within the second. The use of this limited translation means that the translator sees no special reason for bringing out the idea of progress more fully at that point. The account in English would become tedious if he did. On the other hand, if the translator sees that the account is enriched by bringing out the full force of the verb, he is at liberty to do so.

“If the context indicates more than one occurrence of the act or state, the force is frequentative. Again the primary idea of the verb in English is not sufficient to convey the full meaning. The addition of an auxiliary like ‘continued’ or an adverb like ‘frequently’ is needed to reveal the full meaning of repetition or customary occurrence.”

 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
David Henson

David Henson wrote:

Butterbattle,

The case of Genesis 1:1 is easy. It says, in English, that God created the heavens and Earth.

Okay, sorry. I suppose this part of it makes sense at least. I'm getting way too eager to criticize and pick this stuff apart.

First, God made the Earth and the heavens, which is the sky. It's quite strange to separate the created things into just the Earth and sky since the Earth is just one tiny planet in the universe and the sky is just what we see from the surface of the Earth, but it doesn't explicitly make an error, and I suppose if Christianity were true, then it'd be meaningful to emphasize the Earth.

On to verse 2.

 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline

mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:mellestad

David Henson wrote:

mellestad wrote:

If religion is a lack if interest then...I guess?

Religion is a strict adherance to belief. Disbelief is a belief, not to mention a world view.

 

mellestad wrote:
I've never thought the Bible said the world is six thousand years old, I've only thought that certain theists use calculations involving genealogy in the Bible to assume that age.

I honestly try not to tell theists what the Bible says, because for most theists the interpretation of the Bible is subjective to whatever they already believe.  When I do use the Bible, I try to use it at the level of the theist I'm talking to.  If a fundamentalist protestant wants to argue young earth theory and yak about anti-evolution stuff, I'll use the Bible like they use it.  If someone wants to debate the Hebrew meaning of wind...I'll let someone who cares mess with it.

 

The Bible isn't central to my world-view or atheism either way, however it *is* central to the world-view and theism of many people who post here, which is why it comes up so often.  You yourself know you don't agree with most of the theists about Biblical interpretation.

To take this to *your* specific case, if you want to debate the existence of a water canopy I wouldn't even use the Bible, because it isn't relevant besides being the source of a silly idea.  I can't prove or disprove canopy theory using the Bible because it has no objective standing to a claim of that kind, I have to use something more objective.

 

I think that what you are expressing is simply what you and I have in common and both well know. You can't debate science with people who have very little interest or knowledge on the subject and you can't do the same with the Bible. We bump not swords but shields.

 

Wake me up when the Bible can do anything useful then.  Until that point I'll stick with the system of thought that enables my life to exist in the first place.

 

You are correct though, our difference is in the basic assumption.  You think the only arbiter of objective truth is your unique religion, and I think the only arbiter of objective truth is logic and reason, often most effectively expressed through the application of the scientific method.

Pragmatically I'm not sure how you can defend your belief in light of what your method is able to discern and discover compared to mine, but I don't know if you will accept any method of falsification for your own beliefs so the point is largely moot unless you're willing to examine your foundational principles.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Hey David,

mellestad wrote:

Hey David, welcome back!

 

One time my three year old daughter said there were little tiny things in her room.  I take this to mean she has a miraculous understanding of germ theory, atomic theory and fully grasps the implications of quantum theory in regards to a multiverse.

I win!  I'll let you know if she confirms any other Truth in her deceptively simple comments about what we eat for dinner tonight.  Yesterday she said she wanted some water and I started a paper on fluid dynamics (I'll see you at the Nobel Prize ceremony!).

As a fundamentalist I find your daughter's god given talent amazing and awe inspiring.  My 2 year old daughter showed me some poop on her finger from her own dipper.  I've enrolled her in a microbiology introductory course at the local university.  What should I wear for the Nobel Prize ceremony, I look like a douche in a tux? 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:mellestad

Ktulu wrote:

mellestad wrote:

Hey David, welcome back!

 

One time my three year old daughter said there were little tiny things in her room.  I take this to mean she has a miraculous understanding of germ theory, atomic theory and fully grasps the implications of quantum theory in regards to a multiverse.

I win!  I'll let you know if she confirms any other Truth in her deceptively simple comments about what we eat for dinner tonight.  Yesterday she said she wanted some water and I started a paper on fluid dynamics (I'll see you at the Nobel Prize ceremony!).

As a fundamentalist I find your daughter's god given talent amazing and awe inspiring.  My 2 year old daughter showed me some poop on her finger from her own dipper.  I've enrolled her in a microbiology introductory course at the local university.  What should I wear for the Nobel Prize ceremony, I look like a douche in a tux? 

An introductory course?  Don't you have any faith?  She should be the chair of Harvard's biology department!

And come naked, like Jesus made you.

-------------

By the way, for dinner she said her soup was too hot, then she blew on it and ate it.  I don't actually know what that means but, since I'm a smart guy, if *I* don't understand it that must mean it is so profound I can't even imagine!  More proof that my faith is accurate!

I'm sure it will make sense someday.  Perhaps if I write it down someone four thousand years (when we finally catch up to her current level of insight, oh, our poor mortal brains!) from now will interpret her words in light of what humanity has discovered and thus reinforce their faith in the almighty!

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Craigart14
Posts: 5
Joined: 2011-01-23
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:jcgadfly

David Henson wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
Not when you can't get past the problems in v.1.

 

As far as I can tell, there are no problems that haven't been addressed. Have I missed something?

So the Hebrew uses a perfect tense verb to describe the creation.  So God created the universe, then left it alone for billions of years?  Then, billions of years after creating the sun, He finally says "Let there be light"?  Did he create the sun and the stars, but forget to turn them on?  Very odd that God completed the creation, but still had to whip the earth into shape, having left it  formless and covered with water.  Then he makes the dome of the sky, which had to be solid because it separates the waters above the sky from the waters below the sky.  Air wouldn't be very effective at that.  And then he hangs the sun and moon and stars in place, inside the dome.  If they were created at the very beginning, where did God keep them for billions of years before the six days of creation begin? 

I'm not fluent in Hebrew, but I think I would try to find out if the English word "then" is a reasonable translation, as in "Then God said, `Let there be light.'"  In English, "then" implies immediately or at the same time, not "after a few billion years."  But then, I wouldn't hang the weight of interpretation on the tense of a single verb, particularly when that interpretation is contradicted by the verses following.

The ancient Hebrews had a very primitive view of the cosmos, a view shared by the various cultures surrounding them.  Given that they knew nothing about science and didn't have a clue how enormous and how far away the stars are, they were just looking up at the sky and wondering where the sun, the moon, and the stars came from, and WTF was holding back the water, and why water sometimes fell from the sky.  Besides, Genesis 1 was most likely composed long after the folk tale Adam and Eve stories that begin in Genesis 2.

Please don't think you are needed to educate atheists, and please don't describe atheism as a belief.  It is a lack of belief, and we lack belief because we have read (and some of us have studied) your holy book and found that it simply doesn't hold up to analysis.  Scholarship is inherently empirical, a search for truth through which we draw logical and always tentative conclusions based on evidence and logic.  Christian bible scholars (a contradiction in terms) begin with their conclusion (their religious belief) and re-interpret the evidence to support it, often cherry-picking quite shamelessly.  You are grasping at straws.  They won't hold you.

Craig

 

 


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:mellestad

David Henson wrote:

mellestad wrote:

If religion is a lack if interest then...I guess?

Religion is a strict adherance to belief. Disbelief is a belief, not to mention a world view.

Your definition is wrong.

 

If Disbelief is still belief, does that mean not collecting stamps is still a hobby?

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13547
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Bob Spence tickles me with

Bob Spence tickles me with his assessment of the bible when we talk on Skype from time to time.

"In the beginning, and then it was all downhill from there". I always get a chuckle out of that line.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Hey, you can't knock the

Hey, you can't knock the Bible too much, where else could you find so much poetically-phrased but meaningless nonsense as in the KJV?

How can you knock such beautiful but WTF? crap as

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;".

Sounds great, until you try to work what the Hell it is supposed to mean.

Its funny, but I always associated that sentence with Genesis, but when I tried to check it up, turns out it's the beginning of John 1.

This little rant was inspired by watching an interesting TV doco from the BBC on the "Story of English". In the episode broadcast last nignt, they mentioned how much the first translations of the Bible into English contributed many memorable words and phrases to the language. Even Dawkins commented on this in "The God Delusion".

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Magus wrote:Your definition

Magus wrote:

Your definition is wrong.

 

If Disbelief is still belief, does that mean not collecting stamps is still a hobby?

hehe, I like that, I'll have to use it against that idiotic 'atheism is a belief/religion' argument.

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc