Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ohmi · 05-31-2008, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by makerowner

Quote:

Originally Posted by ohmi

Hmmm... the days in scripture are defined as from sunset [at location of Jerusalem] to sunset , not sunrise to sunrise...

And there was no sun to rise or set until the fourth 'day' , so how could there be a sunrise or sunset without the sun ??? How could there be any 'day' at all without the sun ???????

I think you may have missed the point. Whether it was on purpose or not is the question.

Hmmm... don't see that in the OP, but:

the necessarily time-less creation of time cannot have any purpose, purpose only exists in time...

ohmi · 05-31-2008, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shadowy Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by ohmi

and Hebrew days are not 24 hours long anyway...

Maybe twice a year they are?

No they never are, twice a year they come close to 24 hours .

>

<

sschlichter · 05-31-2008, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NinJay

Quote:

Originally Posted by ohmi

There were no hours at all then , and Hebrew days are not 24 hours long anyway...

Well, fine. Six sunrise-to-sunrise days (or however they were commonly accounted for at the time the stories were first set down).

The sarcasm of my original post, though somewhat diluted by a technicality, still stands.

I think one point of Schroeder's book (if I recall) is that, since Einstein, we know a day can be 24 hours and billions of years at the same time. The implication is that the text has meaning that was finite enough for ancient readers that would not understand the concept of relativity and amazingly still true even though the original author would not have understood how.

Schroeder then proceeds to do the math which was lost on me but the concept is helpful. (IMO)

Amaleq13 · 05-31-2008, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

...amazingly still true even though the original author would not have understood how.

It is my understanding that the current "best estimate" for the age of the universe is actually closer to 14 billion years.

Setting aside the fundamental idiocy of the endeavor, I don't consider missing the mark by around 2 billion years to be very impressive and certainly not for a god.

Zephyr2007 · 05-31-2008, 01:43 PM

Still doesn't explain the fossil record of species that have come and gone. Nor does it explain evolutionary evidence as found in animal biology and most recently DNA evidence. Theological libraries tend more to explain the method by which one should live ones life rather than any form of cosmological explaination. Your extrapolation is a stretch and also evidence to the need for humans to find something greater than themselves in which to find comfort.

mens_sana · 05-31-2008, 05:58 PM

I can understand why someone would want to believe the Genesis account and, given our contemporary "scientific reasoning" mode of thought, can understand why one would strain credulity in order to make the idea sound reasonable.

What I cannot understand is how the "believer" could take his argument so far out of context as to ignore the Genesis story's concomitant schema of the multi-storied cosmos, from pillars of the earth and Sheol to windows above the firmament of heaven and the waters above that firmament.

Note: I tried to paste a nice drawing into this post, but was unable to do so using CTRL+V. How does one do this?

Toto · 05-31-2008, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mens_sana

....

Note: I tried to paste a nice drawing into this post, but was unable to do so using CTRL+V. How does one do this?

You can only display a graphic by using the IMG tags around a URL to the graphic. You have to post it to another website and link to it.

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

05-31-2008, 01:43 PM	#25
Zephyr2007 Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 25	Still doesn't explain the fossil record of species that have come and gone. Nor does it explain evolutionary evidence as found in animal biology and most recently DNA evidence. Theological libraries tend more to explain the method by which one should live ones life rather than any form of cosmological explaination. Your extrapolation is a stretch and also evidence to the need for humans to find something greater than themselves in which to find comfort.

05-31-2008, 05:58 PM	#26
mens_sana Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: 1/2 mile west of the Rio sin Grande Posts: 397	I can understand why someone would want to believe the Genesis account and, given our contemporary "scientific reasoning" mode of thought, can understand why one would strain credulity in order to make the idea sound reasonable. What I cannot understand is how the "believer" could take his argument so far out of context as to ignore the Genesis story's concomitant schema of the multi-storied cosmos, from pillars of the earth and Sheol to windows above the firmament of heaven and the waters above that firmament. Note: I tried to paste a nice drawing into this post, but was unable to do so using CTRL+V. How does one do this?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.