RAFH

Very few, most of such seems like trying to work in a bunch of heathen/pagan spirt worship with the standard god routine. And it doesn't really relate to the diagram.

Then again, the whole is myth. So what does one expect.

There is the basic miscalculation of the year's length. Sheesh, a whole day off. Most other astronomical myths were much better.

Jedi Mind Trick

We would see a genetic bottleneck in all species at about the point in history where the great flood was supposed to have happened.

Mike Elphick

If you look at the link I provided above, you will see why the Hebrew Earth was created in the order it was.
The ancient Hebrews thought the stars were small and insignificant. None of this, of course, tallies with what we know today about the nature of the universe.

Mike Elphick

I think it's a cross section.
There are some more clues in Enoch, Chapter 18, if you can understand any of it . The firmament was supposed to be glass-like and only a few inches thick; maybe it was made of ice :huh:. The windows could obviously open and close, as described in the Flood story.

RAFH

Yes, but by what mechanism? Did they have a hinge? Wouldn't people see a big square of sky open up?

As you note, the Enoch narrative is convolute. Sort of like the Python parodies, the Blinding Light that Blinds Blindingly.

No wonder they had to have such serious sanctions for anybody questioning it. This is the standard problem with all the mythologies, eventually, if you keep at them, they fail. If you keep asking why, how, what, it leads to absurdity. Which is why questioning is looked down upon so.

Lugubert

Souldn't 'in the beginning' (instead of 'in a beginning') have been bereshith?

JLK

Yes, it doesn't help that there are no vowel points anywhere in the text. b'reshit is by default indefinite, if the bet had points it would be bereshit and a definite article. Somehow most everyone including the ancient bigshot commenters see invisible points.
All goes to show how dopey it is to try to think of this as some clearly understandable, transparent roadmap of creation.

lee_merrill

Well, all right, let’s not call them observations, let’s call them conclusions of science, based on observations—but let’s also not be pedantic. You have never actually made an observation, nor has anyone, if it comes to that! All you “see” is the effects of reflected or refracted light, you have never observed sun or moon or stars.

Well, it fits with a forming earth, according to the theory of planetary formation, and “the face of the deep” implies not mud but liquid form.

Sure there is, “the heavens and the earth” is a Hebraism for “all there is.”

Note that this is told from the perspective of someone on the earth, so “let there be light” could be the sun igniting.

Which is why Augustine thought creation occurred in a moment.

Well, this would be the medieval view, do you know the Hebrew view of that age? “The Mosaic account of creation uses rqiat interchangeably for the ‘open expanse of the heavens’ in which birds fly (Gen 1:20 NASB), i.e. the atmosphere (H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis, 1, p. 59), and that farther expanse of sky in which God placed ‘the lights... for signs and for seasons' (vv. 14,17, referring apparently to their becoming visible through the cloud cover; the stars, sun, and moon presumably having been created already in v. 3), i.e. empty space (ISBE, I, p. 315), over which, as Job said, ‘He stretches out the north’ (Job 26:7).” (TWOT)

Well, no, the word “bara” means create as in a fiat act of God, as a rule.

These words are more general though, here, I believe, and are not restricted to domesticated animals.

And I hold to the day-age view, which does not have this requirement.

Yet “when God created” implies a beginning of all nature, as above, since “heavens and earth” rather obviously means more than just the earth, it means in fact, all of nature.

Well, the same expression is used here: “Early in the reign of Jehoiakim son of Josiah king of Judah” (Jer. 26:1) where it obviously has the definite article. And it's not vowel points here that matter, for with the points, the word can be either definite or indefinite, and the consensus is the definite article, for the Jews believed in creation:

"Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array." (Gen. 2:1)

Sauron

They are neither observations, nor conclusions of science.
They are claims. 2500 year old claims from a culture that didn't even fucking *understand* science.

This is not pedantic - it is the proper classification of these statements. We realize that you'd love to skip the "research and prove" part and just assume these claims into evidence, without doing the hard work.

But it doesn't work that way. And your pathetic attempt to skip the necessary intermediate step is trademark lee_merrill dishonesty.

shirley knott

Classic.
"Let's not be pedantic" followed immediately by the classic ultimate pedantic move, a shift to argument by definition and assertion.
Worthy of Larry Fafarman at his most deranged.


no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott