Quetzal

Hi all, I'm back. Looks like you haven't left much but scraps for those of us who actually have to work for a living occasionally.

However, one comment by LinuxPup early in this thread I found rather interesting: I haven't heard this interpretation before. I'd appreciate anyone who could let me know where it comes from originally.

To me, it actually makes sense! Consider: for about 300-400 million years give or take from the formation of the Earth, light from the sun WASN'T visible from the point of view of a hypothetical observer. This is due to the obscuring effect of the remnant dust disk between the Sun and Earth. Until the disk was either sucked up by gravitational attraction from the inner planets or blown away by the solar wind, Earth was dark. As Sagan put it, there really was a First Dawn.

Is this another example of the biblical apologists attempting to bend their theory to fit scientific data, or is it merely "convergent evolution" in the sense that this is one instance where science and bible accidently coincide?

LinuxPup

Kosh, it's known as the Day-Age interpretation. It's quite popular among modern Christian apologists, most notably, Dr. Hugh Ross, an astronomer. He has an organization called Reasons to Believe, and this is his view... it's the only literal interpretation of Genesis 1 that seems to fit the data.

Asha'man

What?!?! As an amature astronomer, and someone who has spoken with quite a number of other astronomers (both professional and amature), I disagree strongly with this assertion.

My interest in astronomy started with a yearning to understand the REALLY BIG picture. Since the bible is completely useless for this purpose, astronomy was (and is) my answer.

If an astronomer is also a Christian, it is
despite biblical teaching, not because of it. The question of "what existed before the Big Bang" is a philosophical/religious one, and not answerable using science. But after the moment of creation, astronomy provides answers that work and agree with the observed universe, while the Bible does not.

theyeti

But it still doesn't fit the data. The order of creation is all out of whack in comparison to what we know of Earth history. And Noah's flood, which is deffinately global according to a literal reading of Genesis, most certainly did not occur given the geological data. Furthermore, there is the issue of Genesis 1 contradicting Genesis 2. How can one accept literalism given those circumstances? Either one admits that the Bible is not inerrant, or one has to do some heavy-duty interpretation which defeats the purpose of literalism to begin with.

theyeti

LinuxPup

theyeti: not only does the Bible not demand a global flood, it denies it. The problem with people taking a "literal" view, is that they asume the Bible was written in English, and they only take into account the creation/flood accounts in Genesis without crosschecking it with the rest of the Bible. It's not enough to take the Bible literally, you must also take it consistently. The Hebrew does not indicate a global flood. Noah's flood did eradicate the world of life, but not the whole planet. Psalm 104 gets in the face of a global flood view, as it's talks of the waters never covering the surface of land after creation.
Asha'man: Hugh Ross was actually not a Christian until he went through all the major holy books and concluded the Bible was inspired because, not despite of, it's accurate description of creation. What's your reasoning otherwise? That is, what reason do you have that the Bible is not scientifically reasonable?

Kosh

And we have at least one former clergy here
(ex-preacher) who became an athiest while studying
the same books...

excreationist

I posted this before:
Unless about 6 periods of light and dark are involved, it isn't literal. And now you're saying that the Bible needs to be interpreted to match science rather than seeing what the authors wanted to tell us.

Psalms 104:9 says:
"You set a boundary they [the waters] cannot cross; never again will they cover the earth."

The NIV text-note says see also Genesis 9:15, which says "...Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life."
And Genesis 9:11 says "...Never again will all life be cut off by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth."

Psalms is says "never again", implying that it has happened at least once in the past - it doesn't say that water has never covered the earth!!!

Asha'man

To be perfectly clear, I am asserting that the Bible is useless as a guide to Astronomy. (I am not going to argue it's uselessness in other areas, other people can do that better than I. )

First, the Bible actually says virtually nothing about astronomy. There is no presentation of stellar evolution and nuclear fusion. The speed of light is not mentioned. No attempt is made to explain those “wandering” lights that move among the stars, now called planets.

In the few places the Bible does mention things that have an astronomical impact, it shows all the sophistication of a 2000-year-old goat herder. It states that the earth is flat, has four corners, and you can see all of it from a high mountain. The sun rotates around the earth, and can be stopped for a 24-hour period (without the Chinese astronomers recording the stoppage, I might point out). Apparently a “star” can hover above and guide wise men to a single building in Bethlehem (implying a geostationary orbit at an altitude less than 5 miles up or so).

If you think that the bible provides good guidance for Astronomy, you might take a look at the history of an early astronomer named Galileo, and some of the other astronomers of the time.

The creationist debate is also laughable to a real astronomer. The suggestion that we can see things that are billions of light years away because god created the light “already in flight” is just absurd. Astronomers are trying to refine their calculations to the 9th decimal, and the creationists are saying that they are wrong on the first digit.

However, LinuxPup, there is one way Astronomy and religion might cross: the universe is really a beautiful think to look at, and could inspire thoughts of a supernatural creator.

LinuxPup

Asha'man: you are correct in saying the Bible does not go into great detail in astronomy, that is, you cannot use the Bible to learn the speed of light, etc. However, what it does speak of can be tested. What's interesting is the Bible says there was a beginning of space and time, and that the universe is undergoing ongoing expansion... an interesting obvservation for someone living thousands of years ago and matches current cosmology. As far as Matthew chapter 4, where Jesus saw "all the kingdoms of the world", the greek word for "world" is kosmos, and can mean universe, the planet, men, world afairs, earthly goods, riches, etc... this doesn't mean the earth is flat, the Bible does not teach that. Even if the world were flat, one could not see all the kingdoms from a mountain, so it makes sense that they're not talking about the entire planet. The Bible also does not make any claims of geocentricity. From the observer on earth, the sun stopped in the sky. Even today people will say "the sun went down"... while technically this is untrue, the meaning behind it is not. This is important: it is not enough to take the Bible literally or figuratively, but understand what the author intended. It is wise to dig into the verses in more depth before making accusations.

excreationist: my point of early church fathers believing in long periods of time is not that of an ad populum argument, but to show that radiometric dating/starlight/etc. (an old earth/universe) was not what compelled them to believe in these long periods of time. And as far the "and evening was, and morning was, day N", my comparision to Daniel shows that the phrase is used with a long period of time... I do believe the sun was around in the first day, and yes there were many evenings and mornings in those long periods of time... There is no problem with that.

Just out of curiosity, are some of you atheists, agnostics, or of some other worldview? I find it interesting that you are arguing the Bible states uncategorically that the earth is young, the atomosphere is solid, the earth is flat, etc. Why do you feel it important to try to establish these claims? Because it will show the Bible false? Why is that important?

excreationist

So what evidence do you have that the early church fathers were convinced that the Bible *obviously* is saying that the days of Genesis are long days, of unspecified lengths of time? And that looking at the Bible alone, it doesn't make sense to interpret the 6 days as being 6 literal days?

You said Daniel chapter 8 - which verses do you mean exactly? Maybe Daniel 8:14 - well this talks about 2300 evenings and mornings. If an evening and morning is equal to about a billion years, then that would be a very long time. The NIV says that this involves 1150 days or about 3 years and explains how this prophecy came true. Try again.

Yes, but were there trillions of evenings and mornings - or only a handful of them? I think Genesis 1 implies that there were only a few evenings and mornings involved - there were no others.

Well I am an atheist but I like to pretend that God might exist, so I'm kind of an agnostic.

I'm interested in what the authors of the Bible are saying. If there isn't enough evidence that the authors didn't think that the sky was solid, then I won't press that point. (BTW, I've never claimed the Bible said that anyway since as a creationist I never found any good evidence that the Bible said that, but on the other hand, I can't read Hebrew)
For example, it seems that the story in Genesis is about a talking snake - this was eventually reinterpreted in Revelations, but the original authors of Genesis seemed to want their audience to think that a literal talking snake is involved - rather than Satan.

BTW, what about when God said that all he had made was "very good"? (Genesis 1:31) Creationists who believe that up until the time Adam sinned, the Earth was a literal paradise. But you believe that there was millions of years of starvation, diseases and agonizing deaths, don't you? How can this be "very good"? (He was specifically talking about his creation - including the animals)

[ January 08, 2002: Message edited by: excreationist ]</p>