FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-12-2001, 06:33 AM   #11
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Ipetrich
(nice name, how did you come to get it?),
Tercel sure as hell is contriving the hell out of Genesis and so brazenly scrambling the text I am left speechless.

Are you a christian by any chance?

If anyone is wondering - I am not French. I am a Kenyan.
 
Old 06-12-2001, 07:58 AM   #12
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by jaliet:

And by the way, my mailbox got flooded with some silly message about "Notification: reply to your BB topic" who the hell is doing that? Isn't one message enough? Tercel is it you? Its a form of harrasment and I will get restraining orders if you dont stop.
</font>
When you posted the message, there was an option to get notified by email everytime
somebody replied to the thread which you
started. Everytime ANYBODY replies, you'll
get an email message. It's your own fault.

 
Old 06-12-2001, 08:06 AM   #13
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by jaliet:
Truethinker,
I am glad you have attempted to answer my questions.
Your answers need some elaboration so let me ask for some clarifications:

You say ""deep" usually refers to the ocean or body of water"
What is this body of water? is it the earth? or is it an ocean or is it space? Where was it?
Who created "the deep"? why is it called "the deep" Because Seas in Gen 1:10 are called seas - not "the deep". Did the author merely decide to use the word "the deep" for literary beauty?</font>
The body of water is just that- a body of water. At the time God is preparing the Earth for life, it is covered with a lot of water. Why did the author use the "deep"? Maybe for poetic license, maybe because God hadn't named it yet- He separates it in two and then names the parts.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Gen 1:9 says "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" (I am using KJV)

This means, that God created the seas and oceans etc on the third day. Do you agree that God created the seas and oceans etc on the third day of creation? (this needs to be clear from your side - because I get the impression that you are implying that by Gen 1:1 "everything" was already in place). And why do you include the word "usually" - are you unsure?</font>
Well the third day just describes the land rising above sea level and formation vegetation. It's not specifically speaking of the creation of seas. I guess it just depends on how you look at it. If land rising is what made oceans and seas, I guess that could be it too. I see it as just describing land rising above sea level. Everything is already in place because verse one already told you that. You shouldn't assume anything else.

I say "usually" to explain why I believe that is what the author is referring to. I am not unsure.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">You Say Actually verse 3 does not say God created light. Rather he calls the light he has already created to shine on the earth, since darkness enshrouds it.

If he had already created "the light" where was it? in his pockets ?(sorry, but I am very serious) What kind of light was it spiritual light, or light as in photons?</font>
I don't know if you read my post well enough. The light is the sun- as I said the heavens already exist. The Bible doesn't say the universe is dark, it says the earth is dark. Apparently something is blocking the way and preventing the light of the sun from reaching its surface. As of day 1, the light of the sun (and moon) can be seen, but not the sources of light themselves. Why? I'll explain later.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Notice the command given; it is similar to the one given on day 1- "Let there be..." Verses 14-19 are actually not saying the sun, moon and stars were created on the fourth day. Rather they state their purpose. A different word is even used asa, to make. If the author is saying they were "created" on this day, he would have used bara, creation from "nothing", to establish it was
brand new


So, when did God create the "sun, moon and stars..."? Why does the author(s) keep referring to first day, second day, third day, fourth day... What's the purpose of all this if its not meant to give an idea of chronology?

What does "Let there be lights" achieve if the lights are already there? Are you telling us that God was engaging in meaningless palaver? Was he wasting his breath?</font>
I think you missed the point I was trying to make. God is not wasting His breath. Meaningless palaver? (Hmmm, Americans don't use such words- I haven't heard that in a long time. Where are you from?) Anyway what I was saying is that there was probably something preventing the sources of light from being seen- and the clouds contributed to this prevention. God issues a command for the light to be in the expanse of the sky, or firmament of heaven made on the 2nd day (the water vapour, clouds, what have you). Ask yourself, when it is very cloudy are you still able to see the sun or can you just sometimes see its light? A better way for me to put it is that on day 4 it went from very cloudy to partly cloudy and sometimes clear. Make sense?

The days in Genesis are used to establish chronology. It seems that from days 1-4, He is just setting up the earth He has already created for life. It's not until day 5 that he actually creates again. In fact it's not until verse 20, that the Henrew for creating brand new, bara is used again.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">And by the way, my mailbox got flooded with some silly message about "Notification: reply to your BB topic" who the hell is doing that? Isn't one message enough? Tercel is it you? Its a form of harrasment and I will get restraining orders if you dont stop. </font>
It seems you turned on notification for replies when you created your thread. Next time you create a thread, uncheck the box.



[This message has been edited by TrueThinker (edited June 12, 2001).]
 
Old 06-12-2001, 08:17 AM   #14
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by jaliet:

If anyone is wondering - I am not French. I am a Kenyan.
</font>
I guess you replied as I was replying back to your post. Anyway I'm from Ghana which is why I asked. The language you used was not common to this part of the world (I live in the U.S. currently).

 
Old 06-12-2001, 11:13 AM   #15
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

T: "1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."The Stars, Sun, Earth were all created.

LP: Totally scrambling the text.

T: Really? The NIV, NASB, NKJV, DARBY all render Genesis 1:1 like this.

LP: That's not my point. My point is that Genesis 1 states that the Sun, Moon, and stars were created a couple days later.

T: "3 And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light."At this point one of two things happened. Either the sun began to give off light, or the vapour cloud around the earth thinned to a point where the sun's light was visible from the earth.

LP: Light without a source is an absurdity.

T: Perhaps. But how is this relevant? The light has a source - the sun.

LP: However, the Sun is described as being created a few days later.

LP: The Earth's atmosphere is NOT a body of continuous liquid water, despite it sometimes having clouds in it.

T: I don't recall saying or implying it was.

LP: Maybe not you, but the Bible, which implies that there is a big ocean of water above the sky.

LP: I suggest reading also:

Matthew 4:8
Revelation 7:1

Consider what they imply about the shape of the Earth.

T: Oh, please!

LP: It must be embarrassing to discover that the Bible strongly implies that the Earth is flat. And this was over three centuries *after* Aristotle had convincingly shown that the Earth is shaped like a ball.

 
Old 06-12-2001, 11:15 AM   #16
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Jaliet: Ipetrich
(nice name, how did you come to get it?),

LP: That's my first initial + my last name

J: Tercel sure as hell is contriving the hell out of Genesis and so brazenly scrambling the text I am left speechless.

LP: I agree.

J: Are you a christian by any chance?

LP: No.
 
Old 06-12-2001, 11:48 AM   #17
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

lpetrich,

Have you read anything I've posted in this thread?
 
Old 06-12-2001, 04:33 PM   #18
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Who cares how many approaches there are? What is your approach?

Thats all I care to know. Your approach - which I intend to diseect. Are you protecting it from me - or you have no approach?

And oh, Tercel Are you a christian? Coz if you are, you should be very vocal in giving me your approach. Dont sit on the fence. If you want to, explain why. If you dont want to, dont give answers that are not yours.</font>
Yes, I'm a Christian. It doesn't mean I have to have an interpretation for every single passage in the Bible. Frankly, I don't know how this should be interpreted. Surely I'm allowed to say "I don't know"? When dealing with such an unclear passage, especially when also trying to read it in light of science, I think "I don't know" is more than justified.
You asked for what Christians think about this passage, and since Genesis 1 is a subject on which I am fairly knowledgable I thought I'd give you the different Christian views. I think both approaches have merit and both have problems.

-Major edit-
I've changed my mind: since I do not have an opinion on the interpretation I will not support one.

[This message has been edited by Tercel (edited June 12, 2001).]
 
Old 06-12-2001, 07:50 PM   #19
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Genesis 1
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.


Most likely, the original Hebrew text went like this: "When the gods began to create the sky and the land--the land being unformed and vacant, with darkness over the surface of the deep [water] and a wind from the gods sweeping over the water..."

The writer presumed the pre-existence of water, so the gods created only the sky and land. This is consistent with the most ancient semitic creation mythology which predates the Hebrew version.

rodahi


 
Old 06-12-2001, 08:47 PM   #20
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by rodahi:
Genesis 1
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.


Most likely, the original Hebrew text went like this: "When the gods began to create the sky and the land--the land being unformed and vacant, with darkness over the surface of the deep [water] and a wind from the gods sweeping over the water..."

The writer presumed the pre-existence of water, so the gods created only the sky and land. This is consistent with the most ancient semitic creation mythology which predates the Hebrew version.

rodahi

</font>
You are not paying attention. Ha'shammayim we ha'erets is a combination in Hebrew that refers to the whole of creation, not the sky and land. It's like the difference between freethinker and free thinker- when combined the word has a different meaning. The common error people make is trying to say that it speaks of the sky and land. Not so.

 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:19 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.