Big Bang ushers in the heavens and the earth...?

I disagree that the Bible offers anything significantly more accurate or unconditional in this context. "Pretty accurate" is also pushing things a little far given how much is unclear, not covered or outright wrong.

Even if we accepted that, despite being flawed and open to interpretation, the Bible offered the least inaccurate depiction, what are we meant to take from that? A bunch of guys 2000 years ago had a bit of insight, a chunk of luck and a way with words?

 

I am always amused by the attempts to jam the biblical square peg into the round whole of reality.

Its rather a trivial thing to take the 6 days and come up with a formula to account for the rougly 4 billion years the earth has existed.

but I suppose the exercise is necessary to maintain the "inerrent word of god" as written by primitive and ignorant men.

 

So then, so far, you are unimpressed that Pangea was specifically mentioned in Gen 1:9?

The Big Bang is the essence of "in the beginning,"... Gen 1:1.

That the early matter which was to form the Earth was just rocks spinning in a disk-shape, and had not yet formed into a Globe. (Gen 1:2)

You see that we just discovered a Cosmic Dark Age which upport the absence of immediate light in the cosmos. (Gen 1:3-5).

The recognition of six Geological "days," recording the history of the earth's evolution impresses you not at all.

And you have already repeated the mantra that the bible just can not be true, as far as you re concerned. Right?

And we are only up to verse 9 so far.

 

Either we use the Geological Clock or decide to refer to the solar Clock, which does NOt match our science about the evolution of the Earth.

Those two choices now exist.

In previous ages, there was only one clock we could know about, and that founded the interpretation you already dislike.
There may be no hope of convincing a person who is dead sure this can't explain Genesis scientifically.
Even if it makes sense.

 

Huh?

I must have missed the lesson. Can you please explain what you mean by solar clock not matching science?

Genesis cannot be explained scientifically. It has no roots at all in science, it is firmly rooted in mythology. the authors were ignorant and primitive with no awareness of science or how the universe and world around them worked.

 

The first six "days" were not clocked by our Earth's Solar clock.

The first day the Earth did not even exist yet, as it was merely a disk of rotating Rocks that had not yet congealed.
Scientifically, we now know that six layers of geological rocks are separated from one another.
In each of the six layers we find the same exact data the Bible tells us about.

This Geological Clock was the measuring devise we need look at, indeed.

 

Genesis can be explained scientifically.

Each verse can be read and shown to correspond with science facts.

(This is the purpose of this Thread)

 

Um, it sure looks like the person who numbered your little chart there was challenged. He's got it bass ackwards.

But despite that your little chart is still just an attempt to fit a square biblical peg into a round reality hole.

On what day exactly did god create the universe?

How did the grass, herbs and fruit survive on the third day, when he didn't create the sun until the fourth day? You call that scientific?

These myths were taken from other contemporary sources by the jews. IOW the bible is NOT original material devinely delivered to a bunch of nameless and faceless ignorant scribes.

 

No, each verse can be read and interpreted or more often misinterpreted in a transparent attempt to validate the claim that the bible iis the inerrant word of god.

But, I can see we will never agree.
At least you aren't a young earther creationist clown.

 

1) hahaaaa...

2) That is all you got,... a silly general denial of the facts.

There IS a geological Clock and that is what God used BEFORE the Earth-even-existed,... starting on "day" one, 13.5 billion years ago.

 

You must research the meanings of all the words to understand how this passage works with science facts:

Genesis 1:11
"And the forces of Nature let the earth bring forth the first sprouts of life in a Spontaneous Generation, which then evolved into the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
And the earth brought forth "the first sprouts of life" and herb yielding seed evolving after its kind, and the tree yielding fruit evolved, whose seed was in itself, after its kind: and forces behind Evolution saw that the Plant Kingdom was making good adaptation to the environment."


(Click on the colored words)

 

So you insist upon interpretations, made by ancient medieval people, years ago, that you also criticize as being unscientific.

When you read it with science in mind, it works out, but because it is OK, you fault it as a square peg into a circular hole??


That is a way to be right, even if you are wrong.

 

Oh criminy.

In all of these myths, the world was said to have emerged from an infinite, lifeless sea when the sun rose for the first time, in a distant period known as zp tpj (sometimes transcribed as Zep Tepi), "the first occasion".

...

The different creation myths had some elements in common. They all held that the world had arisen out of the lifeless waters of chaos, called Nu.

...

The different creation accounts were each associated with the cult of a particular god in one of the major cities of Egypt: Hermopolis, Heliopolis, Memphis, and Thebes.[9] To some degree these myths represent competing theologies, but they also represent different aspects of the process of creation.

...

emphis[edit]
The Memphite version of creation centered on Ptah, who was the patron god of craftsmen. As such, he represented the craftsman's ability to envision a finished product, and shape raw materials to create that product. The Memphite theology said that Ptah created the world in a similar way.[23] This, unlike the other Egyptian creations, was not a physical but an intellectual creation by the Word and the Mind of God.[24] The ideas developed within Ptah's heart (regarded by the Egyptians as the seat of human thought) were given form when he named them with his tongue. By speaking these names, Ptah produced the gods and all other things.[25]

The Memphite creation myth coexisted with that of Heliopolis, as Ptah's creative thought and speech were believed to have caused the formation of Atum and the Ennead.[26] Ptah was also associated with Tatjenen, the god who personified the pyramidal mound.[25]

Thebes[edit]
Theban theology claimed that Amun was not merely a member of the Ogdoad, but the hidden force behind all things. There is a conflation of all notions of creation into the personality of Amun, a synthesis which emphasizes how Amun transcends all other deities in his being “beyond the sky and deeper than the underworld”.[27] One Theban myth likened Amun's act of creation to the call of a goose, which broke the stillness of the primeval waters and caused the Ogdoad and Ennead to form.[28] Amun was separate from the world, his true nature was concealed even from the other gods. At the same time, however, because he was the ultimate source of creation, all the gods, including the other creators, were in fact merely aspects of Amun. Amun eventually became the supreme god of the Egyptian pantheon because of this belief.[29]

Amun is synonymous with the growth of Thebes as a major religious capital. But it is the columned halls, obelisks, colossal statues, wall-reliefs and hieroglyphic inscriptions of the Theban temples that we look to gain the true impression of Amun’s superiority. Thebes was thought of as the location of the emergence of the primeval mound at the beginning of time.[30]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_creation_myths

---

The Babylonians compiled separate Sumerian descriptions of the creation of the universe, and this became their creation story, known as the Enuma Elish.

The Enuma Elish begins by describing heaven and earth as already existing but with these places not yet having meaning because the gods had not yet given them names. According to the Enuma Elish, the world began with the salt waters and the fresh waters not yet separated, and with the fertile marshlands not yet having appeared. The Enuma Elish describes creation as birth: a godly male in the form of fresh waters, called Apsu, mated with a goddess in the form of salt waters, called Tiamat, and the goddess Tiamat gave birth to a variety of gods and to the earth and all things upon it. The gods born of Tiamat grew and multiplied and became rivals of one another. Eventually the gods born of Tiamat chose one of their number as king of the universe. This was Marduk, the god of light, who could perform miracles. According to the Enuma Elish the other gods called out to Marduk, declaring: "Say but to destroy or create and it shall be."

Marduk, as king among the gods, did what kings did on earth: he went forth and battled his enemies – demon gods. According to the Enuma Elish, in pursuing these demon gods, Marduk created the winds from the north, south, east and west so that his enemy might not escape him. Then in victory he surveyed the heavens and added to Tiamat's creations. He created the firmament and stars. He designated the zones of constellations of stars and thereby created the year. He made the moon shine, and he created vegetation. Then, seeing wars among other gods, and knowing that the defeated served the victorious, Marduk decided to create humankind. No god, he decided, should be a servant. Instead, it would be the place of humans to serve the gods.

http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/religion-flood.htm

---

Why would you take an ancient creation myth and try to reinterpret it in modern terms? It's clear that the accounts in Genesis are based on or inspired by other, older myths of that part of the ancient world. You can see that they all liked to start with primordial waters and "chaos," and then start describing acts of creation that include the dry land and the life that inhabits it as well as the waters, which of course are divided into seas, lakes, streams, etc.

The bible is a compendium of one set of myths from an ancient world chock full of them.

 

Not exactly the truth, though.

The myths account for actions between the Gods and tell us a great deal about how each god and goddess acted.
The early myths to which you refer were followed by myths in every other society which appeared.
In each myth, though, the same personalities with different names are characterized and described.

Strange.

The peoples did ot know one another.
yet the writers described the same Goddess of Love or Craft God, or God of War, etc.
They clearly were more personifications about human activity which the people saw in the adults as they grew up.
And, then, they themselves, became the warriors and the craftsmen, and beautiful women of these myths, etc, themselves.

The bible doesn't do that.

 

You try too hard. To the point of total absurdity. Let it go.

 

I disagree with the simple statement that "The peoples did ot know one another." That is, ideas spread from group to group, from culture to culture, especially as empires grew to connect disparate populations. The Persian Empire once connected India to Egypt. Is it any wonder, then, that these distant lands and others in between ended up sharing certain ideas? I think not.

 

Pangea isn't specifically mentioned in Gen 1:9. It's a very generic reference to "creation" of land which could be interpreted to fit pretty much any concept (as it has been).

Gen 1:1 is even more generic, makes no reference to "The Big Bang" (which itself is questionable as "a beginning") and doesn't directly relate to the creation of the Earth. "In the beginning..." has always struck me as an equivalent to "Once upon a time...".

Gen 1:2 isn't a very good description of how it is believed planets form, what with references to surfaces and water. It says nothing about disk-shapes.

For Gen 1:3-5 the whole concept of visible light is meaningless until you have eyes to see it and even then different eyes see different wavelengths. Anyway, the Cosmic Dark Age doesn't refer to a period where there was no "light" only that it was in a different medium. The whole day/night distinction also takes no account of the Earth's rotation or time zones, almost as if it's only in the context of a single place on Earth.

The fact you could split the development of the Earth in to six periods isn't impressive. You could split it in to three, eight or twenty seven if you really needed to. Regardless, there remain major sequencing issues in the six "days" depicted in the Bible that no end of stretching the entire period can resolve.

No, I've never said that at all. The Bible cannot be an accurate and detailed depiction of facts because it is too open to interpretation and too poetic. It could have been inspired by some source of complete knowledge of the universe but I see no way of determining that for certain from the text alone.

My question remains though. If what you believe is correct and the Bible does contain information that it's purported human authors could not have known, what do you expect us to take from that?

 

Cenozoic is number 2 right after the big bang? Yep that surely is scientific.

No, a straightforward denial of nonsense.

Err, it seems you are not aware of what "geological" means. Your logic and argument is a tad skewed.
Day one by your fallacious reckoning kinda ignores the 9 billion years the universe has existed prior to the formation of the earth.

 

Of course they knew each other and shared ideas and technologies...

 

It's a freakin' story. Spun to try to inform the virtually literate curious amongst the masses that couldn't read, write or had even an elementary concept of anything beyond 'hunt, kill, eat'. Sure it's technically inaccurate but essentially, not all that bad.

 

Yep...another lame attempt from a Christian "scientist" to reconcile science and god. Why are you compelled to do this? Belief doesn't require proof, so just embrace your belief rather than try and rationalize it to fit with science.

 

2 Peter 3:8 'But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. That is one of many references to time in the bible. To an eternal/atemporal being the 'passage' of time means little. That verse was saying not to take the time references literally. The seven day creation could of just as easily meant seven billion years seven trillion years (you get the pic?). That said, most Christians know the bible was never meant to be used as a science text book, it seems atheists are not very well educated in the subject that they so criticize. The bible was meant to be many things, a survival manual of how to live without destroying or rather damaging your eternal soul. It's how to be healthy in this three score and ten life. (with practical tips of how to quarantine for disease control and avoid things such as cross contamination and avoid dangerous pathogens, trichinosis for example). Most people know that the bible (means a collection of texts) was written by many authors living in different times and were writing down what they experienced as revelations, visions etc. The bible has at least seven different literary styles, and covers a lot of subjects so interpretation of the bible can seem confusing to a layperson, especially an atheist layperson. If that lay person happens to be a god hating individual, well scripture tells us they will always have difficulty in understanding scripture at least until they can read it with an open mind.

Those wanting to glean the scientific information from the bible or view science through a biblical lens should read authors like Behe (PhD) (Darwin Black box, irreducible complexity). I like PhD level authors because they have already put in the work and chased down the dead ends to make cases for goddidit. The new christian apologists most of them holding at least one advanced degree are fantastic and they cover every science discipline from cosmology to anthropology. So again its my opinion that using the bible as a science text book would be silly. However if you want to know how the universe began and where its going with every thing important in between read it.

reva

 

My point is that all societies developed myths.
But when we examine them all, we see each had a Goddess of Love, a God of Crafts, a God of War, etc.

There is no evidence that one myth began, and all societies then gradually accepted the same gods as described in the original myth.

More clearly, they all had the same source for their development, which was they described human behaviors which could be seen in previous generation and appearing again in the current generation.
The idea that these duplications lived on in spite generation passed on and died is why the Types where considered to be "god-like" worship patterns.

 

The two verses in Gen 1:9-10 are hard to misinterpret from what Pangea was called in 1920, when science first discovered the idea of one giant ocean surrounding one cluster of earth:

9 And God said, "Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.



10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

 

So you admit that the Bible could be interpreted to fit the facts of science.

But that is also the reason why you object, because there are other interpretations which do not fit in with science?
That is not rational at all.

The things is that science can be seen as paralleling scripture if one reads it that way.