Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You don't seem to understand the Gen. 1: 2 narrative. You can't even begin to support your claims.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evidences given for a young-earth
- Thread starter Kilk1
- Start date
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
I did support it, with the account of science.
The symbolic Day 1 is a snapshot of the early earth before there were
continents or life.
gnostic
The Lost One
The thing is, there are no books, scrolls, clay tablets, stone tablets written by the ancient Israelites in the Bronze Age.
All literary evidence points to books like Genesis, Exodus, Joshua were all written in the Iron Age, between 7th century and 4th century BCE.
No Hebrew alphabets were found until the 10th century BCE, and these have nothing to do with the Old Testament texts.
There are no evidence that any of the characters (eg Adam, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, etc, supposed to have lived in the Bronze Age existed.
There are no independent sources to verify the characters existence or that stories have taken place. And Genesis, Exodus and Joshua couldn’t even name a single king from Egypt.
And after the Flood (Genesis 10), it named Nimrod as founder of number of cities in Babylonia and Assyria, and yet there are no one by that name, existing in Bronze Age texts Assyria and Babylonia.
Plus, many of these cities named were archaeologically dated to different times.
For instance, Uruk (or Erech) were occupied by pre-Sumerian people, as early as about 5000 BCE, the deepest oldest layer of the town (Uruk XVIII).
Urbanization of Uruk, where became the largest city in the world by 3800 BCE (Uruk IX), reaching its zenith, between 3600 and 3100 BCE (Uruk VII to IV).
Uruk III (3100 to 2900 BCE) marked the earliest “Sumerian” period, called the Jemdet Nasr period.
The Roman numerals indicate each layer of Uruk, where new city was built on top of the older, dating all the way back to earliest settlement, c 5000 BCE.
My point is that Uruk first existed in the Ubaid period, in 5000 BCE, a city that Genesis didn’t exist prior to the Flood.
Another city, Calah, which Genesis 10, to be built by Nimrod. But historically, it was named Kalhu and was built by the Assyrian king Shalmaneser I, reign 1274 - 1245 BCE).
That’s over 3700 years gap.
And ther other cities were built in different times, eg Nineveh, c 3600 BCE, Babylon, about 2500 BCE, etc.
Accad or Akkad was important Akkadian city that started a Semitic dynasty, by Sargon of Akkad, but archaeologists have never managed to find it, so it cannot be dated.
It is clear that these cities weren’t built by single man, so the brief narrative about Nimrod (Genesis 10), is purely myth.
ps there were no global flood, because the archaeological evidence in Mesopotamia points to no gap in the Sumerian culture in the 3rd millennium BCE.
Last edited:
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
So you can't explain how Genesis 1:2 is wrong?
halbhh
The wonder and awe of "all things".
According to the same collection of scripture (the 'bible') we can learn that normally such a scene as for example Genesis chapters 1, or 2-3, and more, would be given by vision.
Especially such a scene as in chapters 1-3 -- that kind of scene especially. It already reads as if a vision, even before we learn later in another book that visions are the normal way such things would be communicated (in 1rst Samuel).
e.g. -- "The boy Samuel ministered before the LORD under Eli. In those days the word of the LORD was rare; there were not many visions."
(means what it says: if there are few visions, then there simply is little communication from above)
Consider: as one reads more of the various visions, such as by reading the one in Acts chapter 10 for example, then a person will realize that their are consistent normal rules for visions apply, i.e. -- symbolic or metaphorical representations are the basic ways visions work.
So, in any vision, you have at minimum a stylistic representation, even if meant to refer in some sense to real events. And so on. That's not a far-out theory, but instead it's merely the observation of whats in the collection of scripture.
Now, it's valuable to be aware that often an advocate for a theory about Genesis 1, or 2-3, can become ideological, and partisan, and they no longer are able to consider anything. So I don't even try to explain it to many, when it's clear they aren't even going to be interested in such scriptural things as how a vision works, and such. Like, would you go a Trump rally and try to explain to people there that some of the talking points are counter-factual? No.
Better to speak instead to people not caught up in ideology.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Square peg, round hole.
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
Genesis 2:1
"Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep,
and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."
1 - the earth... already created
2 - formless - no landmarks, just water,
3 - empty - just sterile water, probably belching from submarine volcanoes
4 - darkness - dense clouds
5 - deep - probably 3-4 km deep
6 - spirit of God - theological talk not relevant to discussion.
1 - round peg, round hole
2 - round peg, round hole
3 - round peg, round hole
4 - round peg, round hole
5 - round peg, round hole
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
1. Through science there is no evidence that the Earth was created before the rest of the universe.
2. Formless means water? Does with form then mean no water?
3. Meaningless speculation that the Bible does not provide even assertion to support.
4. Lots of things can cause darkness. Clouds are again your speculation without support. It could be. It could be something else or some meaning that was poorly conveyed or obscured out of cultural context.
5. How about 1 km, or 7 km or 11.03376 km. No reason to use your numbers that are more speculation.
6. Agreed.
I assume all these contortions are to turn Genesis into some sort of descriptive science text to support a literal interpretation of the story. As best as can reasonably be supported Genesis is a belief-based view written by intelligent, but ignorant authors, that may have some minor overlap with facts learned since then, but it cannot be demonstrated to fit without imaginative speculation and very plastic reinterpretation after the fact.
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
Genesis is written with overlapping and repeating events.
Not surprising, it was an old text even to the Hebrews of
the Bronze Age.
In the beginning God made the heavens
and the earth.
And the earth.... (snap shots of the evolution of earth follow)
And later is says God created the sun and the moon. However the "heavens"
means heavens as we know it too - sun, moon, stars etc..
The darkness of the earth is because it was a cloud planet like Venus is today.
NASA calls the cloud moon Titan a "precursor earth."
3-4 km deep global ocean is the estimate of the depth without continents. The
figure is not my own.
Terms such a formless, void and firmament are not really understood.
It is not a descriptive science text supported by evidence. You can believe it as you appear to be communicating, but belief is the highest level that can be achieved with that notion.
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
Genesis 1:2 is supported by evidence.
That's where science comes in.
the endless, dark, sterile ocean is an accurate snapshot of
the earth at one stage. Certainly there was the molten stage
and snow ball stage and meteorite stage and many other
stages probably. But Genesis is a theology book, not
science text which no-one would understand or appreciate.
(ie God commands the earth to bring forth life - that wasn't
understood till the late 1800's.)
Back in 2008 people did not believe in the ocean earth.
And it's only in 2019 that it was agreed that life emerged
first on "land" (fresh water) and then the oceans as Genesis
says.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Reality does not describe the Earth as "formless" for one. No matter which model one goes with.
an since you base all of your claims on the vague wording of Genesis you are in no position to demand that others be specific. Now you can add hypocrisy to your sins.
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
sooda
Veteran Member
You have an excellent grasp of ancient history.
gnostic
The Lost One
Thanks, sooda.
I have always been interested in ancient history, particularly of Classical Greek and Roman. But in the last 12 or more years, I have turned my attention to Levant, Mesopotamia and Egypt.
And my focuses weren’t just in history, but also in their arts, religions and myths.
The only thing I would wish for, was more free time to learn more.
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
Explain this to me. Before the temple was built ca 1000 BC the Israelites
had a cultic center at a place called Shiloh. Here the Levite priests served
at the altar, and sacrificed animals. They said Moses told them to butcher
the slain beasts on the right side. Shiloh was destroyed when the Ark of
the Covenant was taken by the Philistines.
And now we have archaeological evidence for the destruction of Shiloh
and some of the altar - and the bones of the slain beasts, cut on the right
side.
Shiloh was about 1100 BC. But you believe the story was written around
7th - 4th Century. So how did the scribes of this later period know about
Shiloh if they weren't referencing older texts?
sooda
Veteran Member
The best history teacher I ever had taught every aspect of a culture to include fashion to faith to arts and mythos... not just dates and battles.
gnostic
The Lost One
Look, PruePhillip.
I cannot explain anything in just a few paragraphs, because the formation of the earth is quite intense, and far more complicated than Genesis vague description of “God did it”. And I can’t talk about the Earth without talking about the Sun.
I will try to explain, but I don’t know if you will be able to follow it all of it.
And there are so many things wrong about Genesis 1, so it cannot be reduced to just a few words.
The whole sequence of events in Genesis 1 are wrong, and don’t agree with what Earth science say about formation of earth and of the Solar System, let alone about the rest of the universe.
There cannot be ocean of water without the Earth’s crust, and at the very beginning of Earth formation, there were no crust to speak of, especially during the accretion stage of the planetary formation.
According to Genesis 1:1-2, water existed on earth at the very beginning when god created the earth. And it seem there was wind too.
“Genesis 1:1-2” said:
The 1st two verses are meant to be read together, before the creation of light to separate the day from night (1:3-5), and light existed before the creation of stars, moon and sun (1:14-19).
It also say dry land were created until the 3rd day (1:9-11) and vegetation (1:12-13) on the same day.
All of it, are not true.
Our sun is actually young star, with generations of stars forming 9 billion years before the sun.
But since we are talking mostly about the earth, and not the rest of the universe, I will confine my explanation to the solar system.
Do you know the most current definition of a “planet” as oppose to a “dwarf planet”?
There are several requirements, for any astronomical object to be consider a planet. A planet -
- must be massive enough to form into rounded shape - eg a spheroid or near spheroid shape - by its own gravity;
- must not trigger thermonuclear reactions at its core, like a star would;
- and must clear its path and neighboring regions of all obstacles, such as asteroids and planetesimals.
This is very important, PruePhillip, especially the last requirement, because it is essential that you understand this in order to understand how the Earth form.
The earth didn’t form because God said a few magic words, like incantation.
The entire solar system was formed quite violently.
The solar system was form from two things:
- The molecular cloud, which was made mostly of hydrogen, and it is the source of the sun’s energy.
- and debris in the nebulas, which were remnants of supernovas of older stars.
You may ask me why I am even talking about molecular cloud, supernovas and nebulas. But it is very important for you to know without molecular cloud there are no sun, AND without materials blasted into space by older supernovas there would be no planets.
The Earth wasn’t created out of nothing like in Genesis, by incanting some magical words, like God saying “Let there be Earth”, and poof, there is Earth. (Obviously I’ve adapted this from “Let there be light”.)
The sun, or any other stars for that matter, were formed from coalesce of molecular hydrogen. As the sun’s core became more massive, it eventually led to thermonuclear chain reaction, where the hydrogen atoms began fusing into slightly heavier helium atom - this proton-proton chain reaction is what the sun to radiate light and heat, and it is a process known as stellar nucleosynthesis.
The gravitational collapse have added effect to rest of the region (eg solar system), causing all objects from nebulas to flatten into disk, known as the protoplanetary disk, and kick start this disk in orbital motions.
Large objects began collecting small objects (eg planetesimals, asteroids, etc), cause the object to grow in size and in mass. The impacts on the protoplanets would have cause tremendous amount of energy (heat and pressure) that would cause surface to be in molten state.
Like I said before about the last requirement about clearing the path in the planetary orbit, the Earth would have been smashed by asteroids and planetesimals.
My point is that there would not be any water, at this stage of earth history (accretion stage). For the water to exist in any sufficient amount, it must have crust and atmosphere. And the Earth’s molten surface was too hot to support water.
It is only when the earth finally clear the orbits of all large objects, that greatly reducing the number of impacts from asteroids, allowing the molten surface to cool down enough, to solidify into crust of igneous rocks.
During this stage of earth cooling down to form the earth’s crust, there were frequent volcanic activity, which release gases that formed the Earth’s atmosphere, and the Earth’s gravitational field and magnetic fields kept the gaseous atmosphere from being blow into deep space.
Most of the chemical composition of atmosphere were nitrogen and carbon dioxide, but no oxygen. Anyway, the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere will eventually lead to condensation, and condensation will lead to water, eg rain.
But the water didn’t cover the entire earth, like the way Genesis say in verse 1:2. Dry land would have already exist before water, because not all the crust were basins for water.
The other wrong about Genesis is how can the Earth have wind (1:2), if there were no atmosphere until the creation of the sky, which some translated as firmament, dome, vault or the expanse 2nd day (1:6-8)?
Also the Genesis’ 3rd day, after creating dry lands, it assumed that vegetation can immediately grow.
Wrong.
Vegetation need soil to grow from, and soil don’t just appear out of nothing.
Do you know where soil come, where it ultimately come from, PruePhillip?
There are 3 main types of soil:
- sandy soil,
- silt,
- clay
Since the Earth’s crust was originally made of igneous rocks, there would have to be billions years, to form enough sediments either into sedimentary rocks or into soils, before first vegetation can grow.
And guess what, PruePhillip?
It did take billions of years before there first plants existed on Earth. Plants, like fungi and animals, are all multicellular organisms.
Green algae formed along with other multicellular life, during the Cambrian period, but land plants didn’t evolve from green algae until the Ordovician period.
Even when the Earth formed the land from the Earth’s crust, it was pretty barren, because vegetation could grow at any place, until soils exist, and that took billions of years.
And if you recalled, marine life existed in the Cambrian period, so Genesis is also wrong about vegetation existing before life in the sea.
If you understand the science of the earth and of life, you would to realisation that much of the order as given in Genesis 1, are wrong.