Genesis 2

[outhouse]

That is your belief, but there are many of the world's population who see it as false.

They are probably not educated on the topic, and or apologetically biased with their obviously unsubstantiated opinion that carries no credibility what so ever.


Its is not belief, it is common knowledge shared throughout the whole world as higher learning or scientific education.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Hi FM, To use your "seem", for better than 80 years when I observe the Earth in the morning and throughout the day, the earth I'm standing upon doesn't appear to be moving. It is my observation that in Joshua's day it was the same---as is recorded, """and hasted not to go down about a whole day.""" Yet at any hour later in the day the Sun is higher in the sky and arcs to the western horizon.

Much was accomplished during that time frame and it was the Creator GOD'S doing that slowed the setting of the sun to appear as stopping.
In my life-time, I have had a few days that seemed to drag on for a extended period of time. And when one's enemies are absorbing one's attention, who can watch the sundial??



FM, 2000 years ago, when John was given the Prophecies and the symbolism seen in the Revelation, Did he know the actual size of anything? The expanse of the Roman Empire was measured not in miles----,but by days to travel(whether by foot, beast, or vessel.)

In the breakup of the Roman Empire, that "falling star" was in the region occupied by those waters. That "falling star" was symbolic of the army which caused that portion of the Empire to be destroyed. That portion of the prophecies is fulfilled.



FM, """"The original word raqia is derived from the root raqa ( רק&#1506, meaning "to beat or spread out", """"" and that is what the Creator did---HE spread out the enveloping earth's "firmament"/atmosphere and heavens. and it was of the same type of material throughout that protecting environment.



No! the Scriptures indicate that all things were created out of the dust of the Earth as well---they fly in the air above the earth.



FM, That is the nomenclature in use today.
I'm relating what the Scriptures revealed and was recorded in Genesis 1+2.



My GOD is capable of producing all that is ascribed to HIS Creating.
Because all the details were not reported in those brief chapters of Genesis to your satisfaction---doesn't mean they didn't occur as indicated----"HE SPOKE AND IT STOOD FAST."
GOD, also, was aware that the Moon was lesser because it reflected the light from the Sun. But is does give some light at night. It was used to because of its orbit and reflection to denote Months---the "new moon". Yes, GOD Knew what HE was doing in all HIS creative ways and means.



ALL that "Science has discovered in those disciplines"(and others) was placed there by GOD and reveal HIS CREATIVE POWER. Rev.14:6-7, "And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters."



FM, You are correct, Dinosaurs are not mentioned in the BIBLE; BUT, all things GOD wanted to Create was finished upon the sixth day of Creation.
When that ARK came to rest, and the animals were released upon the earth, they were given "fear" of mankind. Did GOD see/know that group of animals as being/would be detrimental to Mankind and they were not placed in the Ark??
Neither do I seen any "weapons" recorded.

Except that the earth is moving Relativity actually explains movement in terms of perspective. However people back then believed that in their perspective it was the earth that stood still and the Sun move. If this is the writing of God why would God not inform them of what was actually happening? Why did God wait till Copernicus to have that truth revealed? And why was it until Einstein that relativity (how things move in relation to our perspectives) become known? It could have been in the bible could it not? Rather than leading to people believing something that was not actually true.

So John believed that stars were small enough to fall to the earth? Is that because that is what it actually was? Or because John was limited?

There are plenty of other details given, see under God much of science could have been revealed through the Bible. Especially since the term firmament which is a spread out dome (which I notice you left out) is in conflict with scientific knowledge.

But underground has air too, and if you laid flat on the earth you would still have air to breathe would you not? The only creation specified to have been made from the dust of the earth in genesis is Adam (I forget if Eve was as well after the Rib was removed). Interestingly enough the chemical composition of dirt (dust) is well known and it does not match up that well with the composition of humans, mostly cause of the organic carbon. But still the concept of firmament does not fit with what we know of where birds fly, indeed if you look at the atmospheric layers of the earth that represents the firmament which they spoke of far more than where the moon and sun reside (again look up the distance required to travel to get to them).

Dinosaurs so what happened to them? God commanded Noah to bring in two of every kind of living thing. Not all dinosaurs were large, and not all dinosaurs were meat eaters. But again Science says that dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago. Are you saying that is when the Flood happened?

In Genesis they attempt to build a tower to reach the heavens and God disperses mankind. We now have satellites orbiting the planet (including a space station), and if I remember correctly last year (2013) Voyager one has left our solar system. So where is heaven?

 

[sojourner]

Yes, there is a "Firmament"="raqiya". That is where the clouds which hold the water are. It is,also, where the birds fly, and where the sun , moon and stars are.

The bible says that the firmament separates the waters above from the waters below. If the firmament is thick enough to include the stars, what is "above" the firmament, and where's the water?

 

[Thief]

The bible says that the firmament separates the waters above from the waters below. If the firmament is thick enough to include the stars, what is "above" the firmament, and where's the water?

I read it as 'substance'.

When dealing the event unto Moses, terms that Moses could see with his mind would need be dealt.

'Let there be light'....would need a precursor.
Light is formed of fusion.
The fusion would be that of the most simple of elements.
But how to say hydrogen unto Moses?
How to explain the fusion of atoms?

Seems that water would be the closest of terms that an old man Moses might grasp.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I read it as 'substance'.

When dealing the event unto Moses, terms that Moses could see with his mind would need be dealt.

'Let there be light'....would need a precursor.
Light is formed of fusion.
The fusion would be that of the most simple of elements.
But how to say hydrogen unto Moses?
How to explain the fusion of atoms?

Seems that water would be the closest of terms that an old man Moses might grasp.

It's God, the one who reveals mysteries unto man. Moses would have been able to understand. The Israelites could have become the most scientifically advance or at least correct group on the planet.

 

[Thief]

It's God, the one who reveals mysteries unto man. Moses would have been able to understand. The Israelites could have become the most scientifically advance or at least correct group on the planet.

Surely you know.....science can't be dealt unto everyone.
And though Mose was well educated by the standard of his time.....
he would hardly be able to grasp what call everyday knowledge.

If you tell a man he is made of dust...you can prove it.
Cut him. Let him bleed unto a rock.
Let him watch as the blood turns to dust.

But explain to him the body cell, and the ills of infection?.....not likely.

Mose likely thought the stars above to be no more than candles held steadfast by the angels.

Grasp the speed of light?.....nope!...won't happen.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Surely you know.....science can't be dealt unto everyone.
And though Mose was well educated by the standard of his time.....
he would hardly be able to grasp what call everyday knowledge.

If you tell a man he is made of dust...you can prove it.
Cut him. Let him bleed unto a rock.
Let him watch as the blood turns to dust.

But explain to him the body cell, and the ills of infection?.....not likely.

Mose likely thought the stars above to be no more than candles held steadfast by the angels.

Grasp the speed of light?.....nope!...won't happen.

Except it's God explaining. Not man. God is intelligence and so can give it.

 

[sojourner]

I read it as 'substance'.

When dealing the event unto Moses, terms that Moses could see with his mind would need be dealt.

'Let there be light'....would need a precursor.
Light is formed of fusion.
The fusion would be that of the most simple of elements.
But how to say hydrogen unto Moses?
How to explain the fusion of atoms?

Seems that water would be the closest of terms that an old man Moses might grasp.

What you read is immaterial. What's actually on the page? Water. Above a rigid dome, upon which are fixed the sun and moon. That's what's on the page. it's WRONG.

 

[metis]

Since we do not want to close any doors to further evidence, the fundamental question is Has mankind firmly established, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the earth and "heavens" were the result of that "BB theory"??Or is it in that group of "not proven" "components"??

As previously mentioned, we generally don't use the word "proven, instead preferring to use words like "evidence", "it appears...", "observed", etc.

At this point, the BB has some pretty solid evidence to support it, but what is very far from clear is what may have caused it to happen, assuming that the evidence may well be correct. Even if we eventually pretty much know what may have caused it, this would highly unlikely end discussion as to whether there's a god or gods because the next question is what caused the cause?

BTW, what caused "God", and how could anyone possibly know the answer to that question? I have to ask questions like this because you keep asking us for "proof", but then that works both ways, doesn't it. One doesn't get a free ride simply because they may believe in one set of scriptures.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

As previously mentioned, we generally don't use the word "proven, instead preferring to use words like "evidence", "it appears...", "observed", etc.

At this point, the BB has some pretty solid evidence to support it, but what is very far from clear is what may have caused it to happen, assuming that the evidence may well be correct. Even if we eventually pretty much know what may have caused it, this would highly unlikely end discussion as to whether there's a god or gods because the next question is what caused the cause?

BTW, what caused "God", and how could anyone possibly know the answer to that question? I have to ask questions like this because you keep asking us for "proof", but then that works both ways, doesn't it. One doesn't get a free ride simply because they may believe in one set of scriptures.

From reading Legions posts (if I understand them correctly), it would not even make sense to say that something caused the bigbang (at time as we know it or understand it didn't exist -- time is complicated enough as it is in our Universe) If something did cause the expansion of the Universe for it to operate it would have to be internal I think in that miniscule space that existed.

 

[metis]

From reading Legions posts (if I understand them correctly), it would not even make sense to say that something caused the bigbang (at time as we know it or understand it didn't exist -- time is complicated enough as it is in our Universe) If something did cause the expansion of the Universe for it to operate it would have to be internal I think in that miniscule space that existed.

Quite possibly, but Brane Theory is still very much alive, but even that doesn't necessarily discount what you are saying. Susskind thinks that we may know much more by the end of this decade because of the study of the "afterglow" (background radiation from the BB).

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Quite possibly, but Brane Theory is still very much alive, but even that doesn't necessarily discount what you are saying. Susskind thinks that we may know much more by the end of this decade because of the study of the "afterglow" (background radiation from the BB).

I would have to revise what I said, given that time and space are linked, at the point of the bigbang even an internal cause would not have been enough as there would not have been enough space for time to even have meaning. If it was simultaneous than there is no actual cause.

 

[metis]

I would have to revise what I said, given that time and space are linked, at the point of the bigbang even an internal cause would not have been enough as there would not have been enough space for time to even have meaning. If it was simultaneous than there is no actual cause.

I have a very difficult time wrapping my head around an uncaused cause because it's seemingly beyond our experiences. OTOH, what's to say that everything must be based on our very parochial experiences and logic. For what it's worth, and I'll admit it ain't much, I tend to lean in the direction of sub-atomic particles and/or their components (strings?) going back into infinity. With this hypothesis, there is no uncaused cause-- just a web of cause and effect going back into infinity.

BTW, my signature quote is from Matthieu Ricard, and his thought on this really resonated with me. I don't know if you've read what I had posted quite a while back explaining his thoughts on this. If not, interested?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I have a very difficult time wrapping my head around an uncaused cause because it's seemingly beyond our experiences. OTOH, what's to say that everything must be based on our very parochial experiences and logic. For what it's worth, and I'll admit it ain't much, I tend to lean in the direction of sub-atomic particles and/or their components (strings?) going back into infinity. With this hypothesis, there is no uncaused cause-- just a web of cause and effect going back into infinity.

BTW, my signature quote is from Matthieu Ricard, and his thought on this really resonated with me. I don't know if you've read what I had posted quite a while back explaining his thoughts on this. If not, interested?

An uncause cause is something that is hard to wrap your head around but if I understand correctly causes are tied to locality which is the surroundings. At the point of the big bang there would not be any surroundings. Would it be safe to say that everything that there ever would be (at least the parts) were in that one particular point. Internally there would not have been any space and time for a cause-effect scenario to take place, and whatever it is that that point resided in would not be like any space or time that we are aware of.

Sure. I'm heading out right now have to go take a test for a job but I should have access to my phone .

 

[metis]

An uncause cause is something that is hard to wrap your head around but if I understand correctly causes are tied to locality which is the surroundings. At the point of the big bang there would not be any surroundings. Would it be safe to say that everything that there ever would be (at least the parts) were in that one particular point. Internally there would not have been any space and time for a cause-effect scenario to take place, and whatever it is that that point resided in would not be like any space or time that we are aware of.

Sure. I'm heading out right now have to go take a test for a job but I should have access to my phone .

Good luck with your test, and I hope all pans out for ya.

There are several theories covered in the book "The Universe Before the Big Bang: Cosmology and String Theory" by Maurizio Gasperini-- are you familiar with it? Anyhow, he points to several possibilities being thrown around by cosmologists, and almost all of them do work with cause and effect-- iow, no uncaused causes.

I think it's either Kaku or Singh that has a hypothesis whereas differing charges within the minute universe got too close together in the extremely limited space, opposed each other, thus breaking the bonds that held it all together. Since there were actually two rapid expansions, once it began to expand, other charges came close to each other thus leading to the second expansion a mini-second apart from the first.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Good luck with your test, and I hope all pans out for ya.

There are several theories covered in the book "The Universe Before the Big Bang: Cosmology and String Theory" by Maurizio Gasperini-- are you familiar with it? Anyhow, he points to several possibilities being thrown around by cosmologists, and almost all of them do work with cause and effect-- iow, no uncaused causes.

I think it's either Kaku or Singh that has a hypothesis whereas differing charges within the minute universe got too close together in the extremely limited space, opposed each other, thus breaking the bonds that held it all together. Since there were actually two rapid expansions, once it began to expand, other charges came close to each other thus leading to the second expansion a mini-second apart from the first.

Yeah it's just the concept of cause requires time. I still have some reading to do. When I'm done with my masters I plan to take some audited classes in biology and anthropology and hopefully cosmology (though it's been forever since I've done any type of calculus).

 

[sincerly]

Except that the earth is moving Relativity actually explains movement in terms of perspective. However people back then believed that in their perspective it was the earth that stood still and the Sun move. If this is the writing of God why would God not inform them of what was actually happening? Why did God wait till Copernicus to have that truth revealed? And why was it until Einstein that relativity (how things move in relation to our perspectives) become known? It could have been in the bible could it not? Rather than leading to people believing something that was not actually true.]/quote]

Since Gen.3, GOD has been in the business of man's redemption---with mankind understanding what is entailed in the necessary relationship of mankind to GOD and to each other.

 

[sincerly]

Yeah it's just the concept of cause requires time. I still have some reading to do. When I'm done with my masters I plan to take some audited classes in biology and anthropology and hopefully cosmology (though it's been forever since I've done any type of calculus).

Hi FM and Metis, It is Amazing to the theories and pursuits one will go to discredit the Creator GOD and His word in the Bible.

"Afterglow"
"Miniscule space that existed"
"sub-atomic particles" or "components"
"going back to infinity"

Therefore, where/what is the "source" for those things? and time ,itself, doesn't produce anything--- but more "eternity". And Why would there be "eternity/time" when there is 'Nothing"?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Hi FM and Metis, It is Amazing to the theories and pursuits one will go to discredit the Creator GOD and His word in the Bible.

"Afterglow"
"Miniscule space that existed"
"sub-atomic particles" or "components"
"going back to infinity"

Therefore, where/what is the "source" for those things? and time ,itself, doesn't produce anything--- but more "eternity". And Why would there be "eternity/time" when there is 'Nothing"?

Eternity and Time are not the same thing.

Also the BB has nothing to do with whether or not there is creator God. Do you understand what theory means in a scientific context?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Except that the earth is moving Relativity actually explains movement in terms of perspective. However people back then believed that in their perspective it was the earth that stood still and the Sun move. If this is the writing of God why would God not inform them of what was actually happening? Why did God wait till Copernicus to have that truth revealed? And why was it until Einstein that relativity (how things move in relation to our perspectives) become known? It could have been in the bible could it not? Rather than leading to people believing something that was not actually true.]/quote]

Since Gen.3, GOD has been in the business of man's redemption---with mankind understanding what is entailed in the necessary relationship of mankind to GOD and to each other.

That has not answered my question.

Also when were Dinosaurs created and when did they become extinct?