Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 03-02-2005, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bible Thumper

Alright, I read your posts after being told to by another member here.

What you need to do is explain 2 Peter 3:7-8. Yep! One day is not a 24-hour period!

...now that's a tough one for the Atheists...

:rolling:

The past affects what comes after it. 2 Peter can say nothing about what came before it -- that is unless you could show how it could have any say, but then, if you could you, wouldn't need 2 Peter.

If you want to imagine that a day was anything more than 24 hours in Gen 1, which obviously has nothing to do with 2 Peter, then you need to explain why Gen 1 should be used to establish the sabbath, when the days weren't -- according to you -- 24 hours long: anything longer would render the sabbath meaningless.

Someone who is not prepared to change their opinion isn't really worth talking to, because there can be no exchange.

spin

spin · 03-02-2005, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darwin's Beagle

spin,

As I understand your argument it is that the author of Genesis 1 intentionally planned this parallelism. If this is so then I would expect the text to imply that the seas were formed on day 2 more so than any other day.

Here is the pertinent text, Genesis 1:6-10, 13 (NRSV):

-------------------------------------
And God said, "Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters, So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so. God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

And God said, "Let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear. And it was so. God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. ... And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.
-------------------------------------

Now while I agree with you that one COULD read that to mean that seas were created on the second day, I think a plain text reading of the verses more strongly suggests that the author is saying that God split the original "chaotic waters" in half to make the sky on day 2. The waters were still pretty much chaotic at that time. The seas were not formed until day 3.

The water under the sky already existed as a result of the deeds of day 2. What God did on day 3 was to uncover the land by gathering the water into one place.

Day 1 separates light from dark.
Day 2 separates the water below from the water above and puts the sky up to hold the waters above in place.
Day 3 separates the land from the water.

spin

rlogan · 03-02-2005, 10:03 PM

Quote:

He had Moses write Genesis in a more 'easier-to-read' format that basically says the same thing.

Well, if you want to offer this then you might as well argue that it is a recipe for a chocolate cake or instructions on how to fly a space ship to pluto.

It isn't anywhere remotely like the "same thing".

If you start saying "day" means something other than "day", then "grass", "tree", and "fruit" also mean whatever you want and there is no means of discerning what is being said at all. It means anything and everything, and therefore means nothing. So why even read the damned thing.

Anat · 03-02-2005, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The water under the sky already existed as a result of the deeds of day 2. What God did on day 3 was to uncover the land by gathering the water into one place.

Day 1 separates light from dark.
Day 2 separates the water below from the water above and puts the sky up to hold the waters above in place.
Day 3 separates the land from the water.

Yet the work of day 2 is incomplete, as there is no "and God saw that it was good" on day 2, but 2 instances of it on day 3. (Thus Mondays are considered somewhat unlucky and Tuesdays doubly blessed by Jews.) It looks as if there is tension between the intended parallel pattern of forming/filling and the other pattern, of completing stages and finding them good.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.