wavy said:
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.
