Jasin

GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

Context is important!!!!
Gen 1:4 LIGHT: NOT the sun which was created on the fourth day (v. 16), but some fixed light source outside the earth. The earth passed through a day-and-night cycle in reference to this light. (Liberty Doctrinal FootNotes 1988)

Btw I can Give at least 100 examples of a "fixed light source" that are in no way the sun or related to it in anyway whatsoever and even several that are outside the earth. Any idiot who knows the basics of science and theology can!

Well It's clear that the first one is not a contridiction or what this website is calling an INCONSISTENCIE. So I refuse to go any further into this webiste.

-DM-

While this may not be a true "contridiction [sic]," it most definitely is an "INCONSISTENCIE [sic]" so far as I am concerned. Further, I think that a perfect and omnipotent "God" could have, should have, and would have done a better job of it had He anything to do with the writing of a book.

It is the Sun which provides the light of day, separates night from day, and provides the means by which we separate one day from the next. There is no other "fixed light source" of equal magnitude, thus your so-called explanation is simply one more example of an ad hoc "how-it-might-have-been" scenario in a feeble attempt to get the primitive authors [plural] of Genesis off the hook with regard to the inconsistencies in that book. Your "explanation" is no better than an alternative such as that "God" turned a powerful flashlight on and off in order to separate one day from the next prior to the time that He subsequently created the Sun.

Regarding delving further into this "webiste [sic]," I can certainly understand your reluctance to go beyond the very first of my BIBLICAL INCONSISTENCIES; it can be a bit disturbing to discover just how many there are in the Bible. It certainly was disturbing for me, yet I feel quite fortunate that--even during the time that I was myself a rather fundamentalist Christian--I was able to keep an open mind with regard to knew knowledge about the Bible. Eventually I came to understand that the Bible couldn't be the work of a perfect and omnipotent "God"--unless, perhaps, He had some ulterior motive in giving us such a flawed book, a motive which would be inconsistent with His alleged love.

--Don--

Brad Messenger

It has been suggested that the creation story in Cp. 1 is to connect the first three days with the last three.

For instance, God makes light on the First Day. He makes light moving by making the Sun and Stars (The authors thought the Earth was stationary of course).

God makes the heavens and oceans on the second day, and He creates the birds and sea creatures on the fifth day. Thus, the birds are the moving in the heavens and the fish in the sea.

God makes the land on the third day, and He creates the animals and man on the sixth day.

I find this interpretation of Chapter 1 more interesting than if it is asserted as true.

emotional

</STRONG>

Actually the traditional explanation (at least from the Talmudic sources) is

1) General light, not a fixed object
2) Dispersal of light onto sources

Rashi, the greatest Jewish commentator of the Torah, did feel this inconsistency and tried to circumvent it by saying that the light of Gen 1:3-5 was the "hidden light" of God kept for the righteous, not the physical light which was created on the fourth day. A good example of textual embarassment. That's why the Jewish rabbis decreed that only five-year-olds should read the Bible, and afterwards pass on to the Talmud, so that they should not raise doubts by reading the Bible too deeply.

</STRONG>

Conjecture. Most likely the writers of the Bible didn't know about the axis tilt behind the day/night phenomenon at all. The Bible was written by flat-earthers. See my article Biblical Creation Account and Cosomology.

</STRONG>

No problem, do so. I'd be glad to analyse the artifacts, and also verify that nothing got lost in the translation.

You've "won" the battle, but you don't want to "continue" the war. Is it fear? If the Bible is true then you have nothing to fear. If not...

Jasin

{Jasin,

Please review our forum rules and policies on fair use of copyrighted material. Since you have not commented on or criticized the scientific material that you quoted, it is potentially a violation of Federal copyright law, and as such I have deleted your quotes and provided links to the sites they came from. (Further, the first two sites you quoted were not attributed at all, which is unquestionably a violation of our forum policies, and copyright infringement to boot.)

In the future, such complications can be avoided by simply linking to relevant sites rather than copying-and-pasting.

Also, it would also be good if you were to give the name of the Hebrew lexicon you are using, since you did quote from it. [Never mind, I found that online as well.]

--Muad'Dib}

NO Don I refuse to go any further into this website becuase the first siupposed contridiction has already been shown to be a missunderstanding on your part and that's putting it nicely.
Don let me give you some advice if you wana convince someone that all yoru supposed contridictions listed on this webapgeare just that then start out with somethin a little more concrete then what you started out with. Your use of the word "innconcistencies" is just a sugar coated way of saying "contridiction" it's nothing more then symantics and an inaccurate use of the word. If you wana throw out the bible because it has an innconsitancie (contridiction) or doesn't then you might as well throw out all of our history books and science books also. Columbis didn't discover America but many of our history books tells us thats who did so I guess based on your logic you better throw out every history book that exist! I'm in no way saying the bible has contridictions or even innconcistancies but what I am saying is books that have error have em because man authros em and no man is perfect all men make mistakes.
The bible is not authored by God Don any idiot who understand basic theology could tell you that but what is in it is most certianly inspired of God. DON't blame God DON becuase you have a lack of knowledge on whats biblical and theological! Thats on you NOT God.


Lets look at this scientificly first and lets start by saying: It's not just the sun that emits light even science it's self tells us this so to say light is all from one sourcre which is the sun is inaccurate.

Science:

1.Chemistry: {Copied from here.}

2. Physics: {Copied from here.}

3.Astronomy: {Taken from here.}

Now lets look at this theologicly,apologeticly.
The english word "light" is translated from the hebrew word 'owr {ore}
The defintion for this word in the hebrew lexicon is: {found here.}

NO one can defenitivly say based on this defintion that it is the sun being refered to in Gen 1:4.

Oh and btw sentence and chapters do have objects,subjects and articles DON somethin you blantly ignore.

DON Do you even know anything about about theology,chemistry,astronomy or grammar?

[ October 21, 2001: Message edited by: Muad'Dib ]

[ October 21, 2001: Message edited by: Muad'Dib ]

kctan

Well, if you look at the point of the ones making the story, it would seems that the Sun must first be hidden by some reason & then only re-appears again after sometime.

Since high density cloud cover, volcanic ashes etc... can cause such an effect of having light to see but Sun unseenable, it can be hypothesize that the makers of the story must be facing some sort of problem whereby the Sun is hidden until sometime later before it is seen again.

In view of such a simple context, the creation story can be easily reconcile only thing is that it no longer is a creation story, merely another story made while primitives yet can't explain away natural phenomenon.

oriecat

Jasin, are you asserting that the Earth, where we live and the bible takes place, would still have night and day even if the sun were not there?

I think it's pretty basic. Our concepts of night and day are created by the Earths rotation changing where SUNlight hits it. Without the sun there is no night and day on Earth. None of the other visible light in the universe is strong enough to produce that here.

-DM-

Jasin said: NO Don I refuse to go any further into this website becuase [sic] the first siupposed [sic] contridiction [sic] has already been shown to be a missunderstanding [sic] on your part and that's putting it nicely.

Jasin: Did you notice that I label that section "Biblical Inconsistencies" rather than "Biblical Contradictions"? Did you notice the disclaimer at the top of the page, which reads:

Please note the use of the word "possible" with regard to "problems." and please keep in mind that what is and isn't an inconsistency or a problem is to some extent a matter of opinion. It bothers me not in the least that you feel that the first listed "inconsistency" isn't a "contradiction" or that you are too closed-minded to look at any of the remaining inconsistencies. And yes, I believe that you are closed-minded in spite of your protestations to the contrary. Why? Because looking at but one listing in a listing of hundreds of possible biblical problems, and then making a snap-judgment on the basis of that one listing is convincing evidence that you are closed minded and prone to making snap judgements as well.

Jasin said: Don let me give you some advice if you wana convince someone ...

I have no interest in whether you are or are not convinced.

... that all yoru [sic] supposed contridictions [sic] ...

Find one place where I have listed a contradiction and you might possibly have a point.

... listed on this webapgeare [sic] just that then start out with somethin [sic] a little more concrete then what you started out with. Your use of the word "innconcistencies" [sic] is just a sugar coated way of saying "contridiction" [sic] it's nothing more then symantics [sic] and an inaccurate use of the word.

Did you check a dictionary before you made the above assertion? The reason that I ask is that neither of my two online dictionaries lists the two words, "inconsistency" and "contradiction," as being synonymous. There is a subtle difference, a subtle difference which is important to me even though it may not be to you.

If you wana throw out the bible because it has an innconsitancie [sic] (contridiction) [sic] or doesn't then you might as well throw out all of our history books and science books also. Columbis [sic] didn't discover America but many of our history books tells us thats [sic] who did so I guess based on your logic you better throw out every history book that exist![sic]

That is not my logic, that is your grossly distorted view of my logic.

I do NOT say that the Bible should be thrown out, rather my little treatise asks the questions:
1.) Is the Bible the work of God?
2.) Is it a valid guidebook?
3.) How can we know?

My treatise on biblical problems (which includes far more than the inconsistencies section) attempts to answer those questions. If you were to read through the entire treatise and still remain convinced that the Bible is perfectly consistent, or that it is only inconsistent because men were involved, so be it.

I'm in no way saying the bible has contridictions [sic] or even innconcistancies [sic] but what I am saying is books that have error have em because man authros [sic] em and no man is perfect all men make mistakes.

The problem with that statement is that it would deny the alleged perfection and/or omnipotence of "God." If "God" existed, and if "He" were both perfect and omnipotent, then certainly it would be no problem to inspire the biblical authors, translators, interpreters, and preachers to do a perfect job of it. In fact, anything else would be a further inconsistency with his alleged perfection and omnipotence--unless, of course, "He" had nothing to do with the writing of the Bible.

The bible is not authored by God Don any idiot ...

You talk about idiots quite a lot. Do you have first hand knowledge of what "any idiot" could tell us?

... who understand basic theology could tell you that but what is in it is most certianly [sic] inspired of God.

Let's talk a little bit about who is and isn't an idiot. Keep in mind that I was once a Christian myself. Not only that, I attended literally dozens and dozens of Bible studies, Sunday School sessions, sermons, etc. I was personally discipled by my pastor (a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary, one of the best in the country), I was on the Board of Elders and Chairman of the Christian Education Committee. I know what I am talking about when it comes to "basic theology." And yes, I know that the claim is that the Bible was not written by "God" (I have never claimed that it was, you know) but that it was "inspired" by "God." It is that claim, that it was inspired by "God," that my material addresses.

I think that the evidence is clearly against divine inspiration of the Bible, the Quran, the Book of Mormon--or any other so-called holy book. If you think otherwise, that is fine with me.

DON't blame God DON becuase [sic] you have a lack of knowledge on whats biblical and theological! Thats on you NOT God.

You need to get a grip on just what it is that I do claim. Most of your so-called arguments are straw man arguments based on nothing but your runaway imagination about what it is that I know, believe, and claim.

Lets look at this scientificly [sic] first and lets start by saying: It's not just the sun that emits light even science it's self [sic] tells us this so to say light is all from one sourcre [sic] which is the sun is inaccurate.

You didn't seem to get it the first time through. Here it is again. It is the Sun which provides the light of day, separates night from day, and provides the means by which we separate one day from the next. There is no other "fixed light source" of equal magnitude, thus your so-called explanation is simply one more example of an ad hoc "how-it-might-have-been" scenario in a feeble attempt to get the primitive authors [plural] of Genesis off the hook with regard to the inconsistencies in that book. Your "explanation" is no better than an alternative such as that "God" turned a powerful flashlight on and off in order to separate one day from the next prior to the time that He subsequently created the Sun. But never have I said that the Sun is the only source of light, thus your straw man here carries no weight in terms of responding to what I have said.

Now lets look at this theologicly,apologeticly [sic]. The english word "light" is translated from the hebrew [sic] word 'owr {ore} The defintion [sic] for this word in the hebrew [sic] lexicon is: {Copyrighted material removed. --Muad'Dib}

NO one can defenitivly [sic] say based on this defintion [sic] that it is the sun being refered [sic] to in Gen 1:4.

If you want to believe that there is or was some other source of light which was capable of separating night from day prior to the creation of the Sun, that is fine with me. But I don't believe it.

Oh and btw sentence and chapters do have objects,subjects and articles DON somethin [sic] you blantly [sic] ignore.

For your information, the chapter constructs (and some of the sentence divisions) in the Bible are rather arbitrary. Perhaps you didn't know that.

DON Do you even know anything about about theology,chemistry,astronomy [sic] or grammar?

Yes, I know something about all of these. If what we write here in this thread is any indication, then I obviously know quite a bit more about correct grammar than you do.

Before you respond again, you might pray both for understanding and for humility. And assuming you are a Christian, one might think that the Holy Spirit should be able to give you a hand with your numerous spelling and punctuation errors.

--Don--

[ October 21, 2001: Message edited by: Donald Morgan ]

emotional

</STRONG>

So do you regard the Bible as absolutely infallible? Or infallible only on theological matters? You don't make it clear enough. As for me, I believe the Bible is fallible in both: it doesn't teach correct theology any more than it teaches correct facts about the natural universe. It teaches a god of man's making.

</STRONG>

No, in fact no-one can definitely say anything for certain here. We're talking about a text written by people long ago in a situation far removed from us, and they probably had their reason to write about the creation of light on two different occasions. However, it is a redundancy. Always possible is for the apologist to wriggle his way out by proclaiming there's a metaphor, an allegory, an intended symbolism here, but then it makes you wonder whether the whole book could be taken literally. The creation of two sorts of light can be reconciled with a symbolic view of scripture but not with the traditional, literal inerrantist view, for it constitutes a redundacy which does not befit the omniscient God.

Do a favour and read my article on Biblical cosmology. And while you're about it, read The Flat-Earth Bible and Scientific Creationism, Geocentricity and the Flat Earth by Robert Schadewald.

[ October 21, 2001: Message edited by: Muad'Dib ]

QuadWhore

Its not really a contradiction.
the bible says god created the sun and the moon to keep track of time. So acording to the story there was already a day and night cycle, the sun and the moon where only created to mark it. The amount of light god was generating if any before he created the sun is irrelevent.