[_ Old Earth _] Gen 1 Defies Physics Laws

[dad]

The 'days' of Genesis are literal. When the Hebrew yom is used in conjunction with a numerical adjective ('day one', 'day two', etc.) it always means a 24hr. literal day. There are absolutely no examples in the Hebrew bible, as far as I am aware, that specify a number of days and the days aren't literal.

OK.

Genesis makes it even clearer by dividing the day into evening and morning, a technical phrase meaning a literal day (cf. Daniel 8:14).

So far so good.

And the idea that the laws of physics in the mind of the author(s) of Genesis 1 (as they would understand 'physics') weren't in place is absurd, as it implies that God created more laws after the six days were complete, contradicting the fact that he rested on the seventh day from creation according to the narrative.

That is absurd. He did rest after creation week, but He never died. He still walked in the garden with Adam in the cool of the day. He still did all sorts of things, like end the life on earth, save for Noah and co. (and sea life). He told Noah how to build the ark. Now, we can see many differences in the world of old, so there is no reason at all to say God never effected a change. If you notice, He changes this whole universe soon, the heavens and earth! He also cursed the ground, after creation, if you recall! He changed the serpent after creation as well, to crawl on his belly. He will also change the animals in the future, so the lion eats straw like an ox, etc etc. Many believe that animals never used to eat meat, by and large, before the flood, as well. Get a grip, man.

 

[wavy]

None of that has anything to do with the laws of physics.

Anyway, the fact that you can't tell us which laws of physics were in place and which ones weren't in the Genesis narrative only proves the presumptuous nature of your position. It's just an easy and desperate attempt to reconcile the incompatibility of Genesis with science...just read things into the text.

 

[kenan]

the Lord isn't bound by the the laws of physics. He is eternal, all powerful and created everything out of nothing - this defies the laws of physics straight up, which say that something cant be created out of nothing. He is also omnipresent, which is also impossible by the laws of physics because you cant be everywhere at once; its completely absurd. but He is the Lord and is not bound by human laws that he created.

 

[dad]

None of that has anything to do with the laws of physics.

None of what, and says who, why? And why would any of that have anything to do with mere physics?

Anyway, the fact that you can't tell us which laws of physics were in place and which ones weren't in the Genesis narrative only proves the presumptuous nature of your position.

Don't be presumptuous. NONE of the present laws were here as is. The universe was different. That means not the same.

It's just an easy and desperate attempt to reconcile the incompatibility of Genesis with science...just read things into the text.

Science only deals in the here and now, and all places in the imagination that are precisely like the here and now, and based on the here and now. Why would Genesis, or Revelations be limited to that?? You almost seem to deny that we are in a temporary universe! If so, then you better pony up the proof pronto, bigtime. Really.

 

[dad]

the Lord isn't bound by the the laws of physics. He is eternal, all powerful and created everything out of nothing - this defies the laws of physics straight up, which say that something cant be created out of nothing. He is also omnipresent, which is also impossible by the laws of physics because you cant be everywhere at once; its completely absurd. but He is the Lord and is not bound by human laws that he created.

OK. I think we all have to agree on that one. God is not bound by temporary universe laws.

 

[wavy]

Don't be presumptuous. NONE of the present laws were here as is. The universe was different. That means not the same.

You're just reading things into the text. Period. There's not one ounce of support nor any indication that the author of Genesis 1 depicted God creating the earth willy nilly -- that is why he presents a systematic, formulaic, and ordered account of the creation myth.

 

[wavy]

He is eternal, all powerful and created everything out of nothing - this defies the laws of physics straight up,

Not necessarily. If the laws of physics do not exist before you create them, then they cannot be violated.

He is also omnipresent, which is also impossible by the laws of physics because you cant be everywhere at once; its completely absurd.

Christians believe God transcends material existence...so this has nothing to do with whether or not the laws of physics existed in Genesis 1.1.

 

[dad]

You're just reading things into the text. Period.

That is a silly little claim. I outlined real differences the bible talks about in the past. There can be no disputing the fact. You are welcome to try, but you need more than a silly little baseless one liner. The plants growth, closeness of the spiritual realm, lifespans, and etc. The differences cannot be read out of the text!

There's not one ounce of support nor any indication that the author of Genesis 1 depicted God creating the earth willy nilly -- that is why he presents a systematic, formulaic, and ordered account of the creation myth.

No idea what you are talking about. 'created wily nilly???? The creation is pretty clear. The order is clear. And how the earth was at the time is also fairly clear in many key areas.
Just as it is clear that there will be a new universe or heavens one day, and these ones pass away.
Either way you look at it, the bible indicates we are in a temporary world at the moment. This is news???

 

[wavy]

That is a silly little claim.

No, it is a fact, and until you can prove the author(s) of Genesis indicated this in any way, it will remain a fact.

There can be no disputing the fact. You are welcome to try, but you need more than a silly little baseless one liner. The plants growth, closeness of the spiritual realm, lifespans, and etc. The differences cannot be read out of the text!

Mention of accelerated growth, patriarchal longevity, etc., have nothing to do with whether or not the author is describing a primitive universe without the present laws of physics.

No idea what you are talking about.

That comes as no surprise...

The point was that you still, for obvious reasons, cannot provide the indication by the author(s) of Genesis that a chaotic world with no relevance to natural, dynamic forces existed at one point while the laws of physics came later. You have not provided it because it does not exist. Vague appeals to the mythical nature of some of the stories (longevity, etc.) serve to prove nothing in regard to physical laws.

Just as it is clear that there will be a new universe or heavens one day, and these ones pass away.
Either way you look at it, the bible indicates we are in a temporary world at the moment. This is news???

Why is this relevant?

 

[dad]

That is a silly little claim.

No, it is a fact, and until you can prove the author(s) of Genesis indicated this in any way, it will remain a fact.

Claiming something as a fact means nothing at all. I demonstrated that there were clear differences in the bible future, and past. You didn't address the facts. There obviously are differences, such as the OP, that can't happen in today's heavens. Period. Deal with it.

Mention of accelerated growth, patriarchal longevity, etc., have nothing to do with whether or not the author is describing a primitive universe without the present laws of physics.

Says you, prove it. Prove man can live a thousand years, trees can grow in a week, angels can marry women, and light can get here from far stars in creation week, and water can be above the earth, and come up instead of rain from below the earth. Show us you examples. Show us how a planet can shift it's waters, and land, separating them, with no heat to kill life under present physics? Until then, you remain in the la la land of myth, without even a bible case. Work on that.

The point was that you still, for obvious reasons, cannot provide the indication by the author(s) of Genesis that a chaotic world with no relevance to natural, dynamic forces existed at one point while the laws of physics came later.

Why would I do that silly thing? I never said or though such absurdities? There will be nothing chaotic about no more temporary state universe at all, when the new heavens come. We will simply have new laws that apply in the forever state. Likewise, if such a state was the created state, and (except for the cursed ground, or surface of the earth) -still existed till after the flood, no chaos is involved at all. Still have no idea what you are talking about.

You have not provided it because it does not exist. Vague appeals to the mythical nature of some of the stories (longevity, etc.) serve to prove nothing in regard to physical laws.

Vague claims that these laws existed prove nothing either. Focus! What does clearly indicate that it had to be different are things that cannot happen under physics, like the OP, or the flood waters above the earth.

Why is this relevant?

It is relevant that the universe is absolutely temporary! That means you cannot extend it's laws beyond testing, and observation. So stop trying, it ain't gonna happen.

 

[wavy]

Claiming something as a fact means nothing at all. I demonstrated that there were clear differences in the bible future, and past. You didn't address the facts. There obviously are differences, such as the OP, that can't happen in today's heavens. Period. Deal with it.

The bible says nothing about laws of physics changing. The biblical cosmology in Genesis contradicts science because it is mythical in its nature. The OP assumes the 'waters above' were the source for the flood, but fails to recognize, for obvious reasons, that the Hebrews believed there was a heavenly ocean, which is why the Psalmist, writing post-Flood (assuming the Flood happened, which it didn't), sitll believes the waters above exist:

Praise Him, highest heavens, And the waters that are above the heavens! (Psalm 148.4)

The rest of your post may be understood in light of what I have here stated. I was simply trying to educate you in a nice way, so that you would realize that you're are being anachronistic (by assuming the laws of physics had anything to do with the Genesis creation(s) and account of the history of the world). My point was that the author doesn't in any way indicate a universe with different physics. Why? Because no such concept existed. The author(s)' cosmology and history is just erroneous.

For example, you mentioned the longevity of the ancient patriarchal fathers. They lived to extreme ages. The ante/post-diluvian Babylonian kings list has kings living to extreme ages -- by thousands of years. Why? Because their texts were divinely inspired and they understood a 'different physics' existed in the most ancient of times? No. Why then? Because their story is a myth as well.

In other words, the Genesis creation is a myth and thus, as stated in the OP, is 'crock'. Your attempt to invent some new concept of 'different physics' and then read those back into Genesis is anachronism and therefore all your points are futile.

Now that I've made my point and position clear, I have no time to continue wasting bantering back and forth with you and will immediately jettison this discussion.

Kind regards,
Eric.

 

[dad]

The bible says nothing about laws of physics changing.

Are you suggesting that the bible says something about the laws of physics being the same!!!!!? If so you better show us. The laws of this universe, the bible does clearly say will be no more. There will be a new heavens, with a very very different reality.

The biblical cosmology in Genesis contradicts science because it is mythical in its nature.

Absolute bunk, and ungodly speculation Prove it. The 'cosmology' of God is real. Genesis was real. The only myth is your claim, that this temporary state heavens is the be all end all.

The OP assumes the 'waters above' were the source for the flood, but fails to recognize, for obvious reasons, that the Hebrews believed there was a heavenly ocean, which is why the Psalmist, writing post-Flood (assuming the Flood happened, which it didn't), sitll believes the waters above exist:

Praise Him, highest heavens, And the waters that are above the heavens! (Psalm 148.4)

Nope. Not even close. Try and make your claims sound like opinion, so you don't step into it like this in the future. Just a tip. Unless you claim that there are NOT now waters above the heavens!?? If so, prove it. Show us what lies beyond our event horizon!!! Get a grip. You have no idea, science has no idea, do us all a favor, be honest, and start acting like it.

The rest of your post may be understood in light of what I have here stated.

You seem to think that what you stated had some light. That remains to be seen.

I was simply trying to educate you in a nice way, so that you would realize that you're are being anachronistic (by assuming the laws of physics had anything to do with the Genesis creation(s) and account of the history of the world).

Too bad, you thought that, hopefully you are beginning to get some hint of what you are up against.

My point was that the author doesn't in any way indicate a universe with different physics. Why? Because no such concept existed. The author(s)' cosmology and history is just erroneous.

Your starting assumption is that it is all BS. OK. Such a claim needs backing up. Good luck with that. I never said that there was different physics. Physics are physical only universe laws. There was, and will be no PO universe, is what I am suggesting.

For example, you mentioned the longevity of the ancient patriarchal fathers. They lived to extreme ages. The ante/post-diluvian Babylonian kings list has kings living to extreme ages -- by thousands of years. Why? Because their texts were divinely inspired and they understood a 'different physics' existed in the most ancient of times? No. Why then? Because their story is a myth as well.

That is because there was some passing on of the fact that long lives used to exist. We also find it in Egypt, and Sumer.

In other words, the Genesis creation is a myth and thus, as stated in the OP, is 'crock'.

No, it is absolute truth. I suggested that IF the present laws were in effect, the planetary separation could not have happened. Why? Because the present laws did not exist, therefore the bible is NOT a crock. Hope you get the drift this time round.

Your attempt to invent some new concept of 'different physics' and then read those back into Genesis is anachronism and therefore all your points are futile.

No more than I invent a new heavens the bible describes much the same way as it describes Eden! Sorry. Nice try.

Now that I've made my point and position clear, I have no time to continue wasting bantering back and forth with you and will immediately jettison this discussion.

You better bail. I just mopped up the floor with every point you made so far. Have a nice retreat.

 

[wavy]

It's late, and I'm bored and I have no problem dismantling your post:

Are you suggesting that the bible says something about the laws of physics being the same!!!!!?

No. No concept of the 'laws of physics' existed in the bible. The fact you are reading such a concept back into the bible is anachronism.

Absolute bunk, and ungodly speculation Prove it. The 'cosmology' of God is real. Genesis was real. The only myth is your claim, that this temporary state heavens is the be all end all.

I made no claims as to whether or not 'this temporary state heavens is the be all end all'. My point is that you're basing your claims in the OP, that the laws of physics did not exist in the beginning, on the assumption that the laws of physics have anything to do with the creation account(s) and that the creation accounts themselves actually happened.

Nope. Not even close. Try and make your claims sound like opinion, so you don't step into it like this in the future. Just a tip. Unless you claim that there are NOT now waters above the heavens!?? If so, prove it. Show us what lies beyond our event horizon!!! Get a grip. You have no idea, science has no idea, do us all a favor, be honest, and start acting like it.

Lol. There never was 'water' above the heavens. The Hebrews believed there was water above the heavens/sky (which they believed held back the water because it was solid) because they thought it was the source of rain (cf. Genesis vii.11). During the Flood what waters underneath the earth (see below) shot up and the water above the firmament fell through window openings and the Flooding of the earth was the result. The fact that you would actually insinuate that countless lightyears beyond the universe is a body of water, and that 'science has no idea' (of whatever you think it has 'no idea' of) only demonstrates your naivete, and inability to provide evidence for your claims...something you haven't, as of yet, done in the least.

Too bad, you thought that, hopefully you are beginning to get some hint of what you are up against.

Lol, okay. Riiiight....

So says the guy who can't even realize his own anachronism.

Your starting assumption is that it is all oopsie. OK. Such a claim needs backing up. Good luck with that. I never said that there was different physics. Physics are physical only universe laws. There was, and will be no PO universe, is what I am suggesting.

I am under no compulsion to prove a negative. It is you,therefore, who has to provide the evidence that the author(s) of Genesis had some concept of the laws of physics and were therefore concerned with it. You're speculating things on your anachronism and ignorance of what the Hebrews actually believed about the universe.

That is because there was some passing on of the fact that long lives used to exist.

An assertion backed by no evidence whatsoever.

No, it is absolute truth.

Taken literally Genesis blatantly contradicts many aspects of scientific fact. Your assertion that the 'laws of physics' didn't exist back then is a special plea backed by no evidence whatsoever, and ignores the fact that the Genesis cosmology is simply wrong.

I suggested that IF the present laws were in effect, the planetary separation could not have happened. Why? Because the present laws did not exist, therefore the bible is NOT a crock. Hope you get the drift this time round.

I will not countenance your babble for much longer. It appears discussion of this topic is something beyond your level of understanding.

You better bail. I just mopped up the floor with every point you made so far. Have a nice retreat.

I will now succinctly attempt to educate you on the false mythical Hebraic view of the universe:

The Hebrews believed that 'in the beginning' four primary elements existed (see Genesis i.2):

1) land (although 'formless and void')
2) darkness
3) water
4)wind.

The Genesis i narrative goes on to describe how God proceeded to form and fill this chaos of elements, thus establishing the ordered 'heavens and earth' (Hebrew: shamayim/erets; literally 'sky/land') of v.1. The first thing God creates is light to counteract the darkness and to establish the principle for a succession of days throughout the rest of the narrative (Genesis i.3-5). The creation of light climaxes the first day (which has already been established as literal).

Next proceeds the creation of the firmament (Hebrew: rakia). This interpolated the deep forming the upper and lower waters (vv. 6-7) and was synonomously named 'heaven' (shamayim, thus fulfilling the first part of v.1; see v.8). The firmament/heaven is a solid, crystalline object (cf. Job xxxvii.18), presumably dome-shaped and is called the 'vault of heaven' in the NASB which God walks on (Job xxii.14) and sits on (Isaiah xl.22), spread out like a canopy over the land (Psalm civ.2). Creation of the firmament climaxes the second day.

Next proceeds the formation of the land and seas. The 'dry' appears (now no longer 'formless') and is called 'land' (eretz, fulfilling the second part of v.1). The land was presumed to be flat (cf. Daniel iv.11), was spread out on top of the lower waters (Exodus xx.4, Psalm xxiv.2; cxxxvi.6). Elsewhere in the bible we learn that deep inside the land was sheol, the realm of the dead (Numbers xvi.30,33, Amos viiii.2). We also learn from elsewhere in the bible that the Hebrews believed the land sat on mountain bases (1 Samuel ii.8, Psalm civ.5). Next in the Genesis narrative the land is filled with vegetation (now no longer 'void'). These events climax the third day (vv.9-13).

Next proceeds the creation of heavenly bodies (sun/moon/stars) to divide the day and the night, which presents a problem with the first day, where day and night are already divided. The Hebrews believed the sun merely governed the 'light' and the moon and stars governed the 'darkness' and were not necessarily the source of light or reason for lack thereof themselves. The sun and moon are called 'great lights', the author obviously under the assumption that the moon's light was intrinsic. The stars are mentioned parenthetically, the author obviously unaware that the sun was a star. These luminaries are placed in the firmament, which is between the two bodies of water, meaning that the author believed that above the luminaries was a body of water (the 'upper waters'). The creation of these things climaxes the fourth day (vv.14-19).

Next proceeds the filling of the sea with marine organisms and the filling of the firmament with arian life (vv.20-23), climaxing the fifth day.

Next proceeds the creation of land organisms and the culminative creation, mankind, on the sixth day (vv.24-31).

Next God proceeds to rest on the Sabbath, the seventh day (Genesis ii.1-3, ending the Priestly account of creation).

The order of creation contradicts evolutionary theory on the order of the rise of life. For example, the evolutionary model teaches marine organisms existed before plants while Genesis teaches plants first and then marine organisms. The literal six-day depiction of creation is contrary to the overwhelming evidence of the age of the universe (perhaps 15 billion years old with an earth almost five billion years old). Genesis also depicts an asburd astronomy. It has a solid sky with a heavenly ocean above it as the source of rain (the Hebrews had no knowledge of the vast distance between the earth and the luminaries). The given function of stars is to give light on the earth and guide the night...something countless stars beyond our galaxy and many, many galaxies and lightyears further away can't do...unless you believe God put them there so that when mankind finally invented telescopes, we would have shiny objects to look at. There are also internal inconsistencies with the Yawhist (J) account of creation in the next chapter.

 

[dad]

It's late, and I'm bored and I have no problem dismantling your post:

"Are you suggesting that the bible says something about the laws of physics being the same!!!!!? "

No. No concept of the 'laws of physics' existed in the bible. The fact you are reading such a concept back into the bible is anachronism.

I think the laws of physics of course do exist in the bible. Except for early Genesis, and the parts later, about the new heavens!
Other than that, I see no differences from how it now works.

I made no claims as to whether or not 'this temporary state heavens is the be all end all'. My point is that you're basing your claims in the OP, that the laws of physics did not exist in the beginning, on the assumption that the laws of physics have anything to do with the creation account(s) and that the creation accounts themselves actually happened.

No. I am pointing out the fairly obvious that science can't tell us one way or the other. I also point out, that some of the things near creation, and far past, as well as the future, in the bible, are impossible under the present laws. There is no reason not to assume that creation happened at all. Not from science, or any place else. Neither do I assume that present temporary laws had anything to do with creation, because as I pointed out, they couldn't have, and I believe it had to be a different state.

Lol. There never was 'water' above the heavens.

Of course there certainly was. Why make claims you can't back up? Science can't say, and the bible does say. There is therefore no reason to doubt it. Like the OP points out, only the assumption that these things happened under a current regime of laws makes it seem impossible. Under current laws, and universe state, I agree. But your fatal flaw here, is that science cannot begin to prove the state of the heavens at the time, one way or the other.

The Hebrews believed there was water above the heavens/sky (which they believed held back the water because it was solid) because they thought it was the source of rain (cf. Genesis vii.11).

Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
There likely was no rain before that. Of course the heavens opening, and the fountains of the deep were the source of the rain. How solid it was, supposedly, you claim that men of old thought it was is another matter. Prove it.

During the Flood what waters underneath the earth (see below) shot up and the water above the firmament fell through window openings and the Flooding of the earth was the result. The fact that you would actually insinuate that countless lightyears beyond the universe is a body of water, and that 'science has no idea' (of whatever you think it has 'no idea' of) only demonstrates your naivete, and inability to provide evidence for your claims...something you haven't, as of yet, done in the least.

I would think that the waters that came in the flood were nearby. Like rings of earth, or a partial canopy, etc. As for waters existing beyond our range of viewing and perception, at the moment, you seem to forget something. You have NO idea what is beyond our event horizon, or visible universe. How dare you make claims what water, therefore is NOT out there????? Doesn't sound like an informed opinion to me at all. Making wild statements about the absolutely unknown!!! I think it would be better to base our opinion on something. I agree with science as far as the poor little poor cousin can go! When it gets beyond those puny limits, I look to the word of the Almighty. I find that better than nothing.

So says the guy who can't even realize his own anachronism.

So says the guy that was mistaken, in thinking there was this anachronism.

I am under no compulsion to prove a negative.

You are obligated to prove or support your claims. If you claim it was the one way, or the other, you need to evidence, and support the claim. Call it a negative or a positive, or anything you like. I call it your own claim, cause that is what it is! I do not need to do that, because I DO NOT claim science says, or indeed CAN say, it was one way or the other! You can't wiggle out of it. Admit the claim is not science based, or lose it, or prove it.

It is you,therefore, who has to provide the evidence that the author(s) of Genesis had some concept of the laws of physics and were therefore concerned with it.

In no way is that remotely similar to anything resembling a shadow of the truth. They just wrote what God inspired them to write. They told it like it was, the silly fact that they knew not the present science laws is not even relative. And what they told, I can tell you, is beyond the laws of the temporary universe we now observe. I can say this, because I am somewhat aware of a bit of these present laws. The issue is that what they described shows that present laws could not have been in place.

You're speculating things on your anachronism and ignorance of what the Hebrews actually believed about the universe.

Well, tell us what you think we believed, precisely, and how that matters much, if God was behind the book anyhow? I seem to remember that there are a few theories about what a firmament was, and etc. Do you really think that it would be hard to fit that into a different universe??? Piece of cake.

"That is because there was some passing on of the fact that long lives used to exist. "

An assertion backed by no evidence whatsoever.

Did not you yourself refer to other historical documents and records that long lifespans used to exist? If we take the Sumer records, however off they may be, and bible, as bang on as it might be, and etc. we see that there is a record in our past of the lifespans. Now, that is evidence. What evidence do YOU have, that they were all wrong??? Really???

Taken literally Genesis blatantly contradicts many aspects of scientific fact.

No, it does not. It is simply not under the same universe state, so present laws are not supposed to apply. If you want to apply them, you need to prove that the universe of the day was the same. No way around it.

Your assertion that the 'laws of physics' didn't exist back then is a special plea backed by no evidence whatsoever, and ignores the fact that the Genesis cosmology is simply wrong.

False!!! It is backed by the evidence of the historical documentation of the bible. Your assertion on the other hand, that our laws did exist back then, is truly not backed, or backable by squat.

I will not countenance your babble for much longer. It appears discussion of this topic is something beyond your level of understanding.

Well, it must be something you haven't said yet, cause that is all kindergarten stuff so far. Maybe you could dazzle us, even if I can't get it, maybe some educated reader here would. Fact is, you can't prove your claims of the state of the past. My concern is not that you will go away, it is addressing what you say while still here. So, threats will get you no where.

I will now succinctly attempt to educate you on the false mythical Hebraic view of the universe:

The Hebrews believed that 'in the beginning' four primary elements existed (see Genesis i.2):

1) land (although 'formless and void')
2) darkness
3) water
4)wind.

No, those things did not exist at all. Nice try, they were created.

The Genesis i narrative goes on to describe how God proceeded to form and fill this chaos of elements,

No, the elements are part of this created universe. He started with nothing.

thus establishing the ordered 'heavens and earth' (Hebrew: shamayim/erets; literally 'sky/land') of v.1.

Now, you may notice that the earth was created right there at the beginning. Not just elements.
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

The first thing God creates is light to counteract the darkness and to establish the principle for a succession of days throughout the rest of the narrative (Genesis i.3-5).

Maybe. Maybe not. He did make light, yes, of course. But the sun was not here, and that is the light that most people use for day and night. That seems to mean He knew what a day was before He even started creating. Can you show how this light was just made to establish days? Did it still do that after the sun was made?

The creation of light climaxes the first day (which has already been established as literal).

Great. So?

Next proceeds the creation of the firmament (Hebrew: rakia). This interpolated the deep forming the upper and lower waters (vv. 6-7) and was synonomously named 'heaven' (shamayim, thus fulfilling the first part of v.1; see v.8). The firmament/heaven is a solid, crystalline object (cf. Job xxxvii.18), presumably dome-shaped and is called the 'vault of heaven' in the NASB which God walks on (Job xxii.14) and sits on (Isaiah xl.22), spread out like a canopy over the land (Psalm civ.2). Creation of the firmament climaxes the second day.

Well, it looks like your evidence for the firmament being solid is a verse in Job.
Job 37:18 Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?

First of all, when was Job writing this? If it was after the flood, and Babel, as most date it, then he was talking about our present sky. If so, that is just a way of describing the sky. Like a molten, or melted mirror. I do not see that as proof that the sky is hard like steel.

"molten looking glass--image of the bright smiling sky. Mirrors were then formed of molten polished metal, not glass."
http://www.studylight.org/com/jfb/view. ... 8#Job37_18

If you want to look at it as if it were pre flood, we could do that as well. Could there have been a semi solid aspect to the part of the rings, or canopy? Piece of cake.

Next proceeds the formation of the land and seas. The 'dry' appears (now no longer 'formless') and is called 'land' (eretz, fulfilling the second part of v.1). The land was presumed to be flat (cf. Daniel iv.11),

Is the verse you offer here Dan 4:11? That is about a tree in a dream. Clarify.

was spread out on top of the lower waters (Exodus xx.4, Psalm xxiv.2; cxxxvi.6). Elsewhere in the bible we learn that deep inside the land was sheol, the realm of the dead (Numbers xvi.30,33, Amos viiii.2). We also learn from elsewhere in the bible that the Hebrews believed the land sat on mountain bases (1 Samuel ii.8, Psalm civ.5). Next in the Genesis narrative the land is filled with vegetation (now no longer 'void'). These events climax the third day (vv.9-13).

Psalm 104:5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.

The surface of the earth will be burned with fire, just before the new heavens appear. The foundations of the earth, or the inner earth, is forever. Yes, there is a spiritual place down there still. The pillars of the earth is another way to call it, or a part of that foundations. The business you interpret about people being so ignorant, they thought the earth was flat, and etc is speculation. You have a whole hose of card scenario, piled on top of nothing.

Next proceeds the creation of heavenly bodies (sun/moon/stars) to divide the day and the night, which presents a problem with the first day, where day and night are already divided. The Hebrews believed the sun merely governed the 'light' and the moon and stars governed the 'darkness' and were not necessarily the source of light or reason for lack thereof themselves.

No problem at all. There was another light. A different light. The light we know, and have is merely what was left to exist in this temporary state universe. That is why Adam could see the far stars, the created light can travel at speeds we only dream of. In the new heavens coming, we also see, that we have no need of the light of the sun.

The sun and moon are called 'great lights', the author obviously under the assumption that the moon's light was intrinsic.

Not really. It is a great light in the night sky. In the past, perhaps, the different light reacted with the moon, in such a way as that it had it's own light shing? Who knows. But, you simply seem to try and make His word look silly.

The stars are mentioned parenthetically, the author obviously unaware that the sun was a star.

It isn't, to us on earth. It is a sun. A star is a smaller light. Hence, the sun, and moon are even called greater lights. Besides, when we think of a star in modern terms, they will burn out, so to speak, one day. The stars in the new heavens will never pass away. So, in a sense, what you call stars will not exist, they are a temporary universe thing!

These luminaries are placed in the firmament, which is between the two bodies of water, meaning that the author believed that above the luminaries was a body of water (the 'upper waters'). The creation of these things climaxes the fourth day (vv.14-19).

Well, I seem to remember Walt Brown citing another interpretation of that. Some feel that the waters separated there were the waters below the earth, and the waters above the earth. In other words, the subterranean waters. So, there are other ways to interpret that. But, if there are waters outside our universe edge, fine with me.

Next proceeds the filling of the sea with marine organisms and the filling of the firmament with arian life (vv.20-23), climaxing the fifth day.

Next proceeds the creation of land organisms and the culminative creation, mankind, on the sixth day (vv.24-31).

Next God proceeds to rest on the Sabbath, the seventh day (Genesis ii.1-3, ending the Priestly account of creation).

Great.

The order of creation contradicts evolutionary theory on the order of the rise of life. For example, the evolutionary model teaches marine organisms existed before plants while Genesis teaches plants first and then marine organisms.

I would certainly hope so! Life started at creation, not the pond. There is no science to back that up that the evolving started beyond that.

The literal six-day depiction of creation is contrary to the overwhelming evidence of the age of the universe (perhaps 15 billion years old with an earth almost five billion years old).

No such thing! The present way that nuclear decay happens is a snapshot of the temporary universe. In the new heavens, and created state, things last forever. The materials, and processes all work abnother way. To read it AS IF it always was as it now is is a mere statement of faith that we had the same past universe. You can't prove that.

Genesis also depicts an asburd astronomy. It has a solid sky with a heavenly ocean above it as the source of rain (the Hebrews had no knowledge of the vast distance between the earth and the luminaries).

The flood did come from the waters above, and below, as stated. It is only absurd under the absolutely absurd starting assumption that the waters were up there under current laws.

The given function of stars is to give light on the earth and guide the night...something countless stars beyond our galaxy and many, many galaxies and lightyears further away can't do...unless you believe God put them there so that when mankind finally invented telescopes, we would have shiny objects to look at. There are also internal inconsistencies with the Yawhist (J) account of creation in the next chapter.

They were for man, that includes man He knew would come to be born one day. There was plenty of stars for Adam, there are plenty for us, and there will always be plenty of room to multiply, forever and ever.

 

[wavy]

I think the laws of physics of course do exist in the bible. Except for early Genesis, and the parts later, about the new heavens! Other than that, I see no differences from how it now works.

I see you still insist on denying your blatant anachronism.

I also point out, that some of the things near creation, and far past, as well as the future, in the bible, are impossible under the present laws.

Then the only logical thing to conclude is that the stories are false. Your anachronistic special pleas will not save your position.

Neither do I assume that present temporary laws had anything to do with creation, because as I pointed out, they couldn't have, and I believe it had to be a different state.

A belief, which I have pointed out previously, is based on no evidence whatsoever. It's special pleading. Period.

Of course there certainly was. Why make claims you can't back up?

Excuse me?! You are the one suggesting water existed above the heavens. The burden of proof is on you to prove it. Here's the kicker: you have no evidence. I am under no compulsion to prove a negative (see below).

Science can't say, and the bible does say. There is therefore no reason to doubt it.

dad: 'the bible creation is true'
wavy: 'why is it true and how do you know?'
dad: 'because the bible creation says it is true'

That, my friend, is called begging the question.

Like the OP points out, only the assumption that these things happened under a current regime of laws makes it seem impossible. Under current laws, and universe state, I agree.

Yet more assertions backed by no evidence.

But your fatal flaw here, is that science cannot begin to prove the state of the heavens at the time, one way or the other.

The claims of science are based on observation and on the physical evidence of those observations. What is your view based on? The statements of the bible...the evidence of which does not exist.

Gen 7:11.... There likely was no rain before that.

An irrelevant statement.

Of course the heavens opening, and the fountains of the deep were the source of the rain.

The 'windows of heaven' were the source of rain...not the fountains of the deep, as you have erroneously asserted here. However, a body of water lightyears away beyond the edges of the universe does little to produce rain on earth...

How solid it was, supposedly, you claim that men of old thought it was is another matter. Prove it.

See further below.

I would think that the waters that came in the flood were nearby. Like rings of earth, or a partial canopy, etc.

Then you have retracted your insinuation that the 'upper waters' of Genesis exist beyond the edges of the universe? If so, you must concede that the sun, moon, and stars all fit under this water 'nearby'. You also used the past tense ('were nearby', implying it is no longer there). If this 'water canopy' dissipated after the Flood, then why does the Psalmist believe it still exists in Psalm cxlviii.4?

You have NO idea what is beyond our event horizon, or visible universe. How dare you make claims what water, therefore is NOT out there????? Doesn't sound like an informed opinion to me at all. Making wild statements about the absolutely unknown!!! I think it would be better to base our opinion on something.

So which is it? Were the 'upper waters' (the supposed 'rings' or 'water canopy') beyond the universe or were they presumably above our atmosphere? And how would you fit the sun, moon, and stars beneath this 'water canopy' so 'nearby' the earth?

So says the guy that was mistaken, in thinking there was this anachronism.

I suggest you consult a dictionary and look up the word 'anachronism'.

You are obligated to prove or support your claims. If you claim it was the one way, or the other, you need to evidence, and support the claim. Call it a negative or a positive, or anything you like.

You patently need a lesson in the study of logic. No one can prove a universal negative, and no one is obligated to. Can anyone disprove a green pig named 'blarbafunk' flies around outside the universe? Of course not. The only way I would have to disprove whether 'blarbafunk' flies around beyond the universe is if there were actually evidence that blarbafunk existed. Likewise, the only way I would have to disprove that a 'water canopy' existed/exists ((something which you can't seem to decide is/was beyond the universe or immediately above the earth), is if you provided the necessary evidence that it actually was real.

I can claim blarbafunk doesn't exist because there's absolutely nothing to back that wild assertion. I can claim a 'water canopy/ring' never existed and doesn't exist because there's absolutely nothing to back that wild assertion.

They just wrote what God inspired them to write.

Another assertion backed by no evidence whatsoever.

They told it like it was, the silly fact that they knew not the present science laws is not even relative.

Even if the author(s) didn't know it themselves and were merely writing what was dictated to them, since you claim present physical laws didn't exist back then you must provide the evidence that the text itself is concerned with our concept of physical laws (whether the author(s) knew it or not).

And what they told, I can tell you, is beyond the laws of the temporary universe we now observe.

The only logical conclusion, therefore, is that the story is a myth. Special pleading will not save your position.

Did not you yourself refer to other historical documents and records that long lifespans used to exist?

Yes, I did. That doesn't establish a historical fact, however, and simply resembles the tendency of cultures throughout history to borrow mythical elements from other cultures.

If we take the Sumer records, however off they may be, and bible, as bang on as it might be, and etc. we see that there is a record in our past of the lifespans. Now, that is evidence.

Lol. See above.

It is simply not under the same universe state, so present laws are not supposed to apply. If you want to apply them, you need to prove that the universe of the day was the same. No way around it.

You've got it backwards, sir. It is you who need to provide the evidence that the creation of Genesis actually happened the way it is described, and that the text itself is concerned with whether or not our concept of physics was an issue. And when did the laws change, may I ask?

False!!! It is backed by the evidence of the historical documentation of the bible.

Yet more question begging:

dad: 'there is evidence that the bible is true'
wavy: 'where is the evidence?'
dad: 'the evidence is in the bible'

Your assertion on the other hand, that our laws did exist back then, is truly not backed, or backable by squat.

You mean that the laws of physics existed in the past or that the laws of physics existed in the bible? In regards to the latter, I would have to believe the bible's presentation of cosmology is true and accurate...which I don't.

No, those things did not exist at all. Nice try, they were created. No, the elements are part of this created universe. He started with nothing.

False. The elements described in Genesis i.2 are not stated to have been created ex nihilio. The author(s) assumes they were there in the beginning. Your claims are not based on the facts.

Now, you may notice that the earth was created right there at the beginning. Not just elements. Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

...'the heavens and the earth' is a description of an ordered universe. Genesis i.1 is prefatory, not chronological. Verse 1 - the rest of chapter i describes how God created 'the heavens and the earth', which is why the 'heaven' is mentioned again in v.8...it is how God created the 'heavens' as stated in v.1. The earth (literal meaning is 'land', not 'earth') pre-existed in a chaotic form ('formless and void'), until it appeared as 'dry' on the third day...which is how the land was created as described in v.1 also.

Can you show how this light was just made to establish days?

God called the light day, and the darkness He called night And there was evening and there was morning, one day. (Genesis i.5)

Well, it looks like your evidence for the firmament being solid is a verse in Job.

'Looks' can be deceiving. I used Job xxxvii.18 as one piece of evidence/proof. The Hebrew word for 'firmament' (rakia) derives from the verb raka, meaning to 'hammer or beat out thin'. Compare its usage here in these few examples:

And they did beat the gold into thin plates, and cut [it into] wires, to work [it] in the blue, and in the purple, and in the scarlet, and in the fine linen, [with] cunning work. (Exodus xxxix.3)

Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein: (Isaiah xlii.5)

It is only used with solid objects (here in these examples with metal and land). Other bibilical examples of the solid, shiny firmament include Exodus xxiv.10, Ezekiel i.22, and Daniel xii.3. There are more proofs if you remain incredulous.

Could there have been a semi solid aspect to the part of the rings, or canopy? Piece of cake.

Reading extraneous things into the text. Could the sun, moon, and stars have fit underneath these 'rings' or this 'canopy'? You're also confusing the distinct water above the solid firmament and the firmament itself.

Is the verse you offer here Dan 4:11? That is about a tree in a dream. Clarify.

The tree is depicted as visible to the ends of the earth...something only accomplished with a flat earth.

The foundations of the earth, or the inner earth, is forever.

That's not was Psalm civ.5 says (it says the foundations exist so that the earth/land, won't be removed, not that the foundations won't be removed, as you have erroneously asserted here); but anyway, are you saying sheol is the the 'foundations of the land'?

Yes, there is a spiritual place down there still.

Yeah, according to the bible it's called 'sheol'.

The pillars of the earth is another way to call it, or a part of that foundations.

Nonsense.

The business you interpret about people being so ignorant, they thought the earth was flat, and etc is speculation.

No, it's based upon an objective examination on what the bible indicates about the cosmos and the earth thereof.

No problem at all. There was another light. A different light. The light we know, and have is merely what was left to exist in this temporary state universe. That is why Adam could see the far stars, the created light can travel at speeds we only dream of. In the new heavens coming, we also see, that we have no need of the light of the sun.

Babbling nonsense.

In the past, perhaps, the different light reacted with the moon, in such a way as that it had it's own light shing? Who knows.

Yet more conjectural babbling .

But, you simply seem to try and make His word look silly.

I certainly am not the one treating the bible in such a way...

The stars in the new heavens will never pass away. So, in a sense, what you call stars will not exist, they are a temporary universe thing!

Nonsense, irrelevant to establishing the cosmology depicted in Genesis.

But, if there are waters outside our universe edge, fine with me.

A water source outside the universe could hardly have served to produce rain for the mythical Flood (Genesis vii.11).

No such thing! The present way that nuclear decay happens is a snapshot of the temporary universe. In the new heavens, and created state, things last forever. The materials, and processes all work abnother way.

Yet more babble.

To read it AS IF it always was as it now is is a mere statement of faith that we had the same past universe. You can't prove that.

Do you mean in the past in general (in terms of uniformitarian science) or in the past according to Genesis? For the latter I would only be obligated to 'prove' anything if I believed the events in Genesis actually happened...which I don't.

They were for man, that includes man He knew would come to be born one day. There was plenty of stars for Adam, there are plenty for us, and there will always be plenty of room to multiply, forever and ever.

Yet more babble. The bible says the stars were created to give light upon the earth, and to be, with the sun and the moon, for 'signs, appointed times, days and years' (Genesis i.14). Stars that we can't even see without a telescope and the stars beyond that which we can't see even with a telescope could hardly fulfill that function.

 

[dad]

I see you still insist on denying your blatant anachronism.

I have none. There were waters above and below.

Then the only logical thing to conclude is that the stories are false. Your anachronistic special pleas will not save your position.

No, there is no reason at all to conclude that the past and future should conform to the present. The present is not the key to the past at all, or the future.

A belief, which I have pointed out previously, is based on no evidence whatsoever. It's special pleading. Period.

Your special pleading that there existed a same state past is noted. My claim is that there is no science one way or the other for that. And your inability to produce any is confirmation.

Excuse me?! You are the one suggesting water existed above the heavens. The burden of proof is on you to prove it. Here's the kicker: you have no evidence. I am under no compulsion to prove a negative (see below).

Show us the science to show there was not, then. Otherwise, what have you got??? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

b]dad:[/b] 'the bible creation is true'
wavy: 'why is it true and how do you know?'
dad: 'because the bible creation says it is true'

That, my friend, is called begging the question.

The bible is nor begging anything. It is known and tested and tried, and proven, over and over for centuries by hundreds of millions of real people. Your emty claims of a same past are begging proof. Begging evidence. Begging science, and opposed to the revealed word of the Creator.

Yet more assertions backed by no evidence.

I offer evidence here and now. You have no proof of your myth, that is foisted as so called science. You have not tested a same state past, or observed one. My assertions that a same state past are not science are gospel.

The claims of science are based on observation and on the physical evidence of those observations. What is your view based on? The statements of the bible...the evidence of which does not exist.

Except that science only observes the present state, and not the past universe state. It never tested the future, or the far past. Your tests are IN the fishbowl of the present, temporary universe only.

An irrelevant statement.

No, what is irrelevant is your challenging it. You need science or bible, or something to do that, you just have not got it. That means your words are empty. Hollow. Meaningless. Unbased. Unsupported myth.

The 'windows of heaven' were the source of rain...not the fountains of the deep, as you have erroneously asserted here. However, a body of water lightyears away beyond the edges of the universe does little to produce rain on earth...

The waters need not have been far away. The fountains of the deep also came up, but the waters also came DOWN, and there is nothing you can say about that.

Then you have retracted your insinuation that the 'upper waters' of Genesis exist beyond the edges of the universe?

No. But no one says that they were the flood waters, do they???

If so, you must concede that the sun, moon, and stars all fit under this water 'nearby'. You also used the past tense ('were nearby', implying it is no longer there). If this 'water canopy' dissipated after the Flood, then why does the Psalmist believe it still exists in Psalm cxlviii.4?

Because maybe he was talking about some water way off far away that is still there. Don't get confused.

So which is it? Were the 'upper waters' (the supposed 'rings' or 'water canopy') beyond the universe or were they presumably above our atmosphere? And how would you fit the sun, moon, and stars beneath this 'water canopy' so 'nearby' the earth?

I would think the rings or partial canopy was right here, above the earth. Any other waters beyond our universe, likely, were not the flood waters, but may well be waters, nonetheless.

I suggest you consult a dictionary and look up the word 'anachronism'.

I did. I suggest you stop making stuff up.

You patently need a lesson in the study of logic. No one can prove a universal negative, and no one is obligated to. Can anyone disprove a green pig named 'blarbafunk' flies around outside the universe? Of course not. The only way I would have to disprove whether 'blarbafunk' flies around beyond the universe is if there were actually evidence that blarbafunk existed. Likewise, the only way I would have to disprove that a 'water canopy' existed/exists ((something which you can't seem to decide is/was beyond the universe or immediately above the earth), is if you provided the necessary evidence that it actually was real.

You need a lesson in logic. If the universe was different, then flood waters did exist above the earth, and we don't need present laws to be part of the reason why. So, if you claim that these present laws and universe state existed, then you need to prove it. Otherwise, I will believe God. Your same past is the blarbafunk.

I can claim blarbafunk doesn't exist because there's absolutely nothing to back that wild assertion. I can claim a 'water canopy/ring' never existed and doesn't exist because there's absolutely nothing to back that wild assertion.

You can claim whatever you like, but it will remain myth, until you prove it. If you claim this state existed, or that the bible state did not exist, you need to support that claim. You can't. You lose.

Another assertion backed by no evidence whatsoever.

It has spiritual evidence. The spiritual is received in the lives of men, it has results, effects. The spiritual things, like inspiration are not in the little fishbowl abilities of present physical only science. But they are observed by millions out of that fishbowl.

Even if the author(s) didn't know it themselves and were merely writing what was dictated to them, since you claim present physical laws didn't exist back then you must provide the evidence that the text itself is concerned with our concept of physical laws (whether the author(s) knew it or not).

Depends what the text is talking about. If it is talking about the future, or far past, then the proof could not be under present universe laws. If it was talking about things in this fishbowl, after the flood, then we must assume temporary state laws are in place. No evidence or science that is physical only can address anything but the temporary universe, where the PO applies.

The only logical conclusion, therefore, is that the story is a myth. Special pleading will not save your position.

Your special pleading that the state of this heavens and earth were the same cannot help your position. Because that is not science.

Yes, I did. That doesn't establish a historical fact, however, and simply resembles the tendency of cultures throughout history to borrow mythical elements from other cultures.

And I suggest that there was a reason that man had remembrances and records of long lifespans. You can't just wave it away, wavy.

You've got it backwards, sir. It is you who need to provide the evidence that the creation of Genesis actually happened the way it is described, and that the text itself is concerned with whether or not our concept of physics was an issue. And when did the laws change, may I ask?

I don't have to provide PO science for a creation I, and the bible indicate were not under temporary universe laws. The time I place the universe change, from what I can deduce from the bible, is about 4400 BC. About a century after the flood.

You mean that the laws of physics existed in the past or that the laws of physics existed in the bible? In regards to the latter, I would have to believe the bible's presentation of cosmology is true and accurate...which I don't.

The present laws only existed as long as we can test, and observe them to have existed.

False. The elements described in Genesis i.2 are not stated to have been created ex nihilio. The author(s) assumes they were there in the beginning. Your claims are not based on the facts.

You put words in God's mouth now. God is the Author. It says right from the getgo in the first verse in the bible, that He created the heavens and the earth. To read into that, that there were elements here already is bunk.

...'the heavens and the earth' is a description of an ordered universe. Genesis i.1 is prefatory, not chronological.

Wouldn't you like to believe that? Chapter one is the created order. Period.

Verse 1 - the rest of chapter i describes how God created 'the heavens and the earth', which is why the 'heaven' is mentioned again in v.8...it is how God created the 'heavens' as stated in v.1. The earth (literal meaning is 'land', not 'earth') pre-existed in a chaotic form ('formless and void'), until it appeared as 'dry' on the third day...which is how the land was created as described in v.1 also.

The changes in the form of what was created are not an issue. I do not doubt that it was somewhat soupy, or in some other form than land and water. But, He created the earth, however it was, and then, later, separated the land from the waters.

God called the light day, and the darkness He called night And there was evening and there was morning, one day. (Genesis i.5)

Yes. There was light, and day, and night. The light, at first was not from the sun. So? The marker for what God already knew was a day later became the sun, and it's light. So?? That changes nothing. Good still knew what a day was.

'Looks' can be deceiving. I used Job xxxvii.18 as one piece of evidence/proof. The Hebrew word for 'firmament' (rakia) derives from the verb raka, meaning to 'hammer or beat out thin'. Compare its usage here in these few examples:

So what? If we wanted to apply that to the surface of the earth, as some do, that divided the waters above the earth, from the subterranean waters, that would fit fine. Or, if there was some rings, or canopy, that had some sort of solidity at least to a part of it near earth, that also would fit. There is more than one little way to look at it.

And they did beat the gold into thin plates, and cut [it into] wires, to work [it] in the blue, and in the purple, and in the scarlet, and in the fine linen, [with] cunning work. (Exodus xxxix.3)

We could apply the concept to that, and other things, yes.

Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein: (Isaiah xlii.5)

Yes, He stretched out the heavens. And, as we now see, they stretch pretty far! So??

It is only used with solid objects (here in these examples with metal and land). Other bibilical examples of the solid, shiny firmament include Exodus xxiv.10, Ezekiel i.22, and Daniel xii.3. There are more proofs if you remain incredulous.

Exodus 24:10 And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness.

That may refer to seeing Him in heaven. Another place, in Revelations, describes a sea of glass there.
Re 4:6 - And before the throne there was a sea of glass like unto crystal: and in the midst of the throne, and round about the throne, were four beasts full of eyes before and behind.
And, if you look at God on His throne, we notice in Eze, that it is sapphire! Sorry, you seem to be taking a physical only interpretation of a spiritual book, no wonder you seem locked out of understanding what it is saying.

Reading extraneous things into the text. Could the sun, moon, and stars have fit underneath these 'rings' or this 'canopy'? You're also confusing the distinct water above the solid firmament and the firmament itself.

Focus here. If the waters above the universe exist, then these are not the waters talked about, likely for the flood. Or, if the waters under the earth, separated by the earth, are the firmament, then we don't need to fit the sun and moon in there. It all depends on what waters we mean, and the context. You seem to assume that there was either or. Either the rings, (or partial canopy) or waters beyond our range of vision at the moment. I say, why not both??

The tree is depicted as visible to the ends of the earth...something only accomplished with a flat earth.

That is a flat interpretation. The ends of the earth or the four winds, or corners of the earth are not carpentry. It is a way to describe the far ends of the world.

That's not was Psalm civ.5 says (it says the foundations exist so that the earth/land, won't be removed, not that the foundations won't be removed, as you have erroneously asserted here); but anyway, are you saying sheol is the the 'foundations of the land'?

The foundations of the earth, is not the surface dirt. It is the planet. The inner eternal foundations of this planet earth, that will be here forever. Yes, the spiritual prison is down there as well.

[quote:f31c4] Yes, there is a spiritual place down there still.

Yeah, according to the bible it's called 'sheol'.[/quote:f31c4]
Call it a tomato if you like. The dead that are not saved go there.

[quote:f31c4]The pillars of the earth is another way to call it, or a part of that foundations.

Nonsense.[/quote:f31c4]
prove it.

No, it's based upon an objective examination on what the bible indicates about the cosmos and the earth thereof.

False. What you call objective, is materialistic, physical only oriented, unspiritual tripe.

No problem at all. There was another light. A different light. The light we know, and have is merely what was left to exist in this temporary state universe. That is why Adam could see the far stars, the created light can travel at speeds we only dream of. In the new heavens coming, we also see, that we have no need of the light of the sun.



Babbling nonsense.

Not according to the bible, because stars were created for man, so we had to have seen a lot of them. Not according to science, it is a deaf mute on the topic.

In the past, perhaps, the different light reacted with the moon, in such a way as that it had it's own light shing? Who knows.

Yet more conjectural babbling .

If it fits the bible, and you have no science against it, your babbling about how it is wrong is babble.

I certainly am not the one treating the bible in such a way...

I will let the readers judge that. Seems to me, you disrespect it to the core.

The stars in the new heavens will never pass away. So, in a sense, what you call stars will not exist, they are a temporary universe thing!

Nonsense, irrelevant to establishing the cosmology depicted in Genesis.

Not in any way is that right. Genesis simply says that stars were made for us. If you want to kick into the modern science definition of star, there were none there. The bible is clear that the sun and stars are forever. At least, when the new heavens get here they will be.

A water source outside the universe could hardly have served to produce rain for the mythical Flood (Genesis vii.11).

I don't say that was the source of the rain. But we could look at that if need be. A different universe is a wonderful thing.

No such thing! The present way that nuclear decay happens is a snapshot of the temporary universe. In the new heavens, and created state, things last forever. The materials, and processes all work abnother way.

Yet more babble.

Not at all. The present decay is a temporary universe thing. It means nothing if there was and will be no deacy. If there was no decay, then the daughter materials never got there, as they now get there. They were there already, if they are beyond 4400 years old. You simply misread the past as if the same state were here then as well, and things were as now.

Do you mean in the past in general (in terms of uniformitarian science) or in the past according to Genesis? For the latter I would only be obligated to 'prove' anything if I believed the events in Genesis actually happened...which I don't.

Any past you can scare up. You can't prove it was the same state. Period. Bible or science.

The bible says the stars were created to give light upon the earth, and to be, with the sun and the moon, for 'signs, appointed times, days and years' (Genesis i.14). Stars that we can't even see without a telescope and the stars beyond that which we can't see even with a telescope could hardly fulfill that function.

Right. But it does not say that that was the ONLY reason they were created!! neither does it say they were ONLY for Adam. There will be trillions of men in the future they are also made for. How they will continue to be signs is a wonderful thing, again, beyond present science.

 

[wavy]

dad, look...

Your post intimates these several things:

1) You do not grasp the meaning of 'anachronism'
2) You do not know what 'special pleading' is
3) You do not know what 'begging the question' is
4) You do not understand my arguments

aaaaaaaaaannnd...

5) In light of the above facts it is clear that discussion of this topic is out of your league, and that continuing to dismantle your claims is an excercise in futility.

Kind regards,
Eric.

 

[dad]

dad, look...

Your post intimates these several things:

1) You do not grasp the meaning of 'anachronism'

1. The representation of someone as existing or something as happening in other than chronological, proper, or historical order.

The created order is Genesis 1. I know the order. What about it?

2) You do not know what 'special pleading' is

It is what you do for your same past state, that you claim existed. You can't prove it.

3) You do not know what 'begging the question' is

You might be more intimate with begging questions than I am. If wishes were horses, your same past myth would ride.

4) You do not understand my arguments

How else do you think they were all just soundly defeated? Coincidence? Get off the high horse.

aaaaaaaaaannnd...

5) In light of the above facts it is clear that discussion of this topic is out of your league, and that continuing to dismantle your claims is an excercise in futility.

Kind regards,
Eric.

If the so called dismantling is anything like you have shown so far, I think most can understand why you need to bow out. Fine.

 

[DD_8630]

2) You do not know what 'special pleading' is

It is what you do for your same past state, that you claim existed. You can't prove it.

Absolute nonsense. The scientific consensus is that the physical laws have remained unchanged. Indeed, if they did change in some arbitrary way, what are the odds that this change is such that, to the Post-Split universe, no change has occurs? Either you are advocating a greater improbability than the null hypothesis, or contend that there is a / ar) sufficiently powerful intelligence(s) actively trying to decieve us fleshy humans. Which is it?

dad, we stand by the null hypothesis: nothingness is by default more probable than somethingness, static is by default more probable than dynamic, linearity is by default more probable than non-linearity. It is up to the opposition to demonstrate that evidence exists which changes these probabilities.

However, all you can do is highlight the remote possibility of some arbitrary change in the laws of physics at some arbitrary point in time that just so happens to fit your preconception about how the universe should have been before said point. You can offer no justification for this assertion beyond your culture's religious beliefs that have been passed down verbatim to you.

Hello again, dad

 

[dad]

Absolute nonsense. The scientific consensus is that the physical laws have remained unchanged.

Not based on evidence, and they have no idea when the present state of the universe came to be anyhow! They simply use present based assumptions to imagine.

Indeed, if they did change in some arbitrary way, what are the odds that this change is such that, to the Post-Split universe, no change has occurs?

The post split universe only knows the post split universe. If the whole thing was left in this state, then NO CHANCE is involved.

Either you are advocating a greater improbability than the null hypothesis, or contend that there is a / ar) sufficiently powerful intelligence(s) actively trying to decieve us fleshy humans. Which is it?

Neither. But you seem to believe in higher intelligence from your avatar, no? Isn't that an occult star, with two sides pointed down?

dad, we stand by the null hypothesis: nothingness is by default more probable than somethingness, static is by default more probable than dynamic, linearity is by default more probable than non-linearity. It is up to the opposition to demonstrate that evidence exists which changes these probabilities.

You base probabilities on current laws, state of our universe. Therefore it is meaningless beyond those limits.

However, all you can do is highlight the remote possibility of some arbitrary change in the laws of physics at some arbitrary point in time that just so happens to fit your preconception about how the universe should have been before said point.

No, not in any way is that close to being right. I do not see any change in physics. Physics are laws of the present state of the physical universe we live in. The eternal state, or created state includes the spiritual and physical together, and not mere physical laws.

You can offer no justification for this assertion beyond your culture's religious beliefs that have been passed down verbatim to you.

Hello again, dad

You seem to have talked to me before? The only witch I remember was over at christian forums. (I forget the name he posted under at the moment)

Since science has no justification of claiming a same state universe, none is needed to refute it. Whatever you may think of the bible, it represents ancient records. It is claimed, that go all the way back to the actual creation. Records that were sacred to His called out people and incredibly well preserved. A far cry better than nothing, such as science has.