Genesis & Science - Friend or Foe?

[Dan From Smithville]

From what I'm sensing I wonder if they either actively or subtly discourage learning anything outside belief-sanctioned knowledge which does not support their views. I could be wrong, but there's a lot of anti-intellectualism going on here from what I'm gathering.

That is the sense that I got from what I have read. They do not prevent people from pursuing an advanced education, they just frown upon it and do not encourage it. I can only guess the motivation beyond the idea of the futility considering the end is coming.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

From what I'm sensing I wonder if they either actively or subtly discourage learning anything outside belief-sanctioned knowledge which does not support their views. I could be wrong, but there's a lot of anti-intellectualism going on here from what I'm gathering.

I do not think they are unique among fundamentalist groups in that, but that sort of overall mentality does remind me of the same stand supported by groups like the Taliban in that regard. The Taliban being an example of the idea taken to the extreme where education consisted largely of rote memorization of religious text and little if anything else.

 

[Windwalker]

Someone else once pointed out the obvious, yet it had not occurred to me, but without the sun, not only would there be no light for the plants, but it would be incredibly cold. Far too cold for cell processes, let alone growth.

Absolutely. Plus, there also would be no oxygen in the atmosphere, if there were no sun because it is created by plants through the process of photosynthesis. That could not occur without the sun.

But there is also the fact that without the sun, the planet would just be sailing off like a rock through space because there was no gravity holding it in place. And even before this, the planet would not even be able to form were it not for the gravity of the sun.

The absurdity of Genesis as science, is beyond laughable. Why such stubbornness to not just take it as metaphor? That is the only rational, reasonable, and intelligent conclusion in the face of such absurdity. It's a great story, why ruin it trying to make it science? It degrads the myth. Science doesn't do that. Fundamentalism does.

Fundamentalism is by definition, against modernity, including science. All the rest is just lipstick on that pig.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Absolutely. Plus, there also would be no oxygen in the atmosphere, if there were no sun because it is created by plants through the process of photosynthesis. That could not occur without the sun.

But there is also the fact that without the sun, the planet would just be sailing off like a rock through space because there was no gravity holding it in place. And even before this, the planet would not even be able to form were it not for the gravity of the sun.

The absurdity of Genesis as science, is beyond laughable. Why such stubbornness to not just take it as metaphor? That is the only rational, reasonable, and intelligent conclusion in the face of such absurdity. It's a great story, why ruin it trying to make it science? It degrads the myth. Science doesn't do that. Fundamentalism does.

Fundamentalism is by definition, against modernity, including science. All the rest is just lipstick on that pig.

Excellent points. I will have to remember them.

There are so many reasons that Genesis is allegory and nothing in it supporting a harmony with knowledge attained through science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Absolutely. Plus, there also would be no oxygen in the atmosphere, if there were no sun because it is created by plants through the process of photosynthesis. That could not occur without the sun.

But there is also the fact that without the sun, the planet would just be sailing off like a rock through space because there was no gravity holding it in place. And even before this, the planet would not even be able to form were it not for the gravity of the sun.

The absurdity of Genesis as science, is beyond laughable. Why such stubbornness to not just take it as metaphor? That is the only rational, reasonable, and intelligent conclusion in the face of such absurdity. It's a great story, why ruin it trying to make it science? It degrads the myth. Science doesn't do that. Fundamentalism does.

Fundamentalism is by definition, against modernity, including science. All the rest is just lipstick on that pig.

I love that phrase, "lipstick on that pig". It has such color and imagery that captures the state of creationist effort at historical and scientific revisionism. I do not know why I do not use it myself.

 

[Windwalker]

I love that phrase, "lipstick on that pig". It has such color and imagery that captures the state of creationist effort at historical and scientific revisionism. I do not know why I do not use it myself.

I was going to say snorting pig, but I thought that was too much. Though I was tempted.

 

[Subduction Zone]

According to what I have read of he officially sponsored church opinion on the subject, education is not a big thing with them. Part of it deals with the fact that they are waiting around to end, so why bother learning anything. Of course, I am summarizing, but this is the essence of the church stance. Members are not encouraged to pursue anything outside of Bible study and what is required by law.

A few do to beyond that, and it seems the church is always a bit wary of them.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I was going to say snorting pig, but I thought that was too much. Though I was tempted.

I know that I get a bit zealous in my defense of science, but the contrived ignorance, complete lack of any rational position or understanding, argument by assertion and barrage of logical fallacies by creationists coupled with that smug, arrogant attitude of false superiority indulges my passion. You would think after 20 years of debating them, I should expect exactly what I get, but I suppose I keep hoping one of them may have an few independent thoughts and the courage to entertain them.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

A few do to beyond that, and it seems the church is always a bit wary of them.

I think they give the elders the heebie jeebies. They are risky individuals that could cause problems if they start applying that education to their religion. Certainly, they have the ability and training to ask the questions that the church doesn't want asked or any attempt at answering.

 

[nPeace]

Right. So since I am not able to respond to all these posts with 1, 2, 3, 4 5, 6, persons responding to every post I make (I won't have any time to live if I tried to keep up), I will make things easy for everyone, including myself.
I will return to what is claimed to be good science - namely the idea that all life came from one common ancestor, and that will be my only focus going forward.
That I will do, after putting any other - what I consider minor - claims to rest.

Starting with the claim that the Genesis account says that the sun came after plants.
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
In the beginning God created what? The heavens, and the earth.
Genesis 1:2 Now the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.
There was what? Darkness upon the earth's watery deep.
Genesis 1:3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
What illuminated the waters? Light came to be. I won't bother to ask why. I can make a pretty good guess though. Could it be for what was to happen next?

Now I wonder where the light came from?
Strong's Hebrew: 216. אוֹר (or) -- a light
אוֹר Hebrew
or English (Transliteration)
a light Meaning (Definition)

NASB Translation
broad (1), dawn (1), dawn* (1), daylight (1), daylight* (1), early morning (1), light (105), lightning (5), lights (2), sun (1), sunlight (1), sunshine (1).

Brown-Driver-Briggs
אוֺר1 light as diffused in nature, light of day Genesis 1:3,4,5 (P) Job 3:9; Job 38:19 +.

2 morning light, dawn, אוֺר הַבֹּקֶר light of the morning Judges 16:2; 1 Samuel 14:36; 1 Samuel 25:34,36; 2 Samuel 17:22; 2 Kings 7:9; Micah 2:1; בֹּקֶר ׳א 2 Samuel 23:4 (poem of David); ׳עַדהָֿא Judges 19:26 (compare עַדהַֿבֹּקֶר Judges 19:25); לָאוֺרJob 24:14; מִןהָֿאוֺר עַד מַחֲצִית הַיּוֺם from dawn till mid-day, Nehemiah 8:3 compare Proverbs 4:18.

3 light of the heavenly luminaries; הַלְּבָנָה ׳א, "" הַחַמָּה ׳א moonlight & sunlight Isaiah 30:26; כּוֺכְבֵי אוֺר stars of light Psalm 148:3; מְאוֺרֵי אוֺר luminaries of light Ezekiel 32:8; אוֺרִים= מְאוֺרִים Psalm 136:7; so עֲלֵיאֿוֺר in sunshine Isaiah 18:4; the sun itself Job 31:26.

4 daylight אוֺר רְשָׁעִים light of the wicked Job 38:15 (their work-day being the night); יוֺם אוֺר a day of light Amos 8:9 (= a clear, sunshiny day).
.....................

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
bright, clear, day, lightning, morning, sun
From 'owr; illumination or (concrete) luminary (in every sense, including lightning, happiness, etc.) -- bright, clear, + day, light (-ning), morning, sun.

see HEBREW 'owr
.................

Genesis 1:16 God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night. And He made the stars as well.
Strong's Hebrew: 3974. מָאוֹר (maor) -- a luminary
מָאוֹר Hebrew
maor English (Transliteration)
a luminary Meaning (Definition)

NASB Translation
bright (1), light (12), lighting (2), lights (3), shining (1).

Brown-Driver-Briggs
מָאוֺר noun masculine luminary — absolute Genesis 1:16 +; construct מְאוֺר Proverbs 15:30 +; plural מְאוֺרֹת Genesis 1:15; מְאֹרֹת Genesis 1:14; Genesis 1:16; construct מְאוֺרֵי Ezekiel 32:8 — light, light-bearer, luminary, lamp, of sun & moon Genesis 1:14,15,16 (3 t. in verse) (P) Ezekiel 32:8; moon Psalm 74:16; מְנֹרַת הַמָּאוֺר the lamp-stand of the luminary or light (where ׳הַמּ is sum of seven sacred lamps on golden lamp-stand) Exodus 35:14 (twice in verse); Exodus 35:28; Exodus 39:37; Numbers 4:9,16, compare Exodus 25:6; Exodus 27:20; Exodus 35:8; Leviticus 24:2 (all P); מְאוֺרעֵֿינַיִם יְשַׂמַּחלֵֿב֑ Proverbs 15:30 the luminary of the eyes (= the eyes as a lamp) gives the light of joy to the heart; מְאוֺר מָּנֶיךָ Psalm 90:8 the luminary of thy face (thy face as a lamp) in the light of which the secrets are exposed. ...........

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
bright, light
Or maor {maw-ore'}; also (in plural) feminine mpowrah {meh-o-raw'}; or morah {meh-o-raw'}; from 'owr; properly, a luminous body or luminary, i.e. (abstractly) light (as an element): figuratively, brightness, i.e.cheerfulness; specifically, a chandelier -- bright, light.


Why would the writer use to different Hebrew words for light - one the light, and the other the light source?
Was it that the poor guy was an ignorant peasant who did not know what he was writing?
Or was it that he knew exactly what he was saying, and used the correct Hebrew expressions, so as to be clearly understood?
It seems to me, the later, since the Bible has proven itself to be God's word, and not the thoughts of mere humans. It is expected that the writers were accurate in what they were guided by God, to convey.

So, from my reading and understanding of the account, the sun existed before the earth.
I said this before, didn't I? Others here have said it more than once. I will not repeat.
From Chapter 1 verse 14, God made the luminaries visible in the firmament, or the earth's atmosphere.

Later.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Right. So since I am not able to respond to all these posts with 1, 2, 3, 4 5, 6, persons responding to every post I make (I won't have any time to live if I tried to keep up), I will make things easy for everyone, including myself.
I will return to what is claimed to be good science - namely the idea that all life came from one common ancestor, and that will be my only focus going forward.
That I will do, after putting any other - what I consider minor - claims to rest.

Starting with the claim that the Genesis account says that the sun came after plants.
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
In the beginning God created what? The heavens, and the earth.
Genesis 1:2 Now the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.
There was what? Darkness upon the earth's watery deep.
Genesis 1:3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
What illuminated the waters? Light came to be. I won't bother to ask why. I can make a pretty good guess though. Could it be for what was to happen next?

Now I wonder where the light came from?
Strong's Hebrew: 216. אוֹר (or) -- a light
אוֹר Hebrew
or English (Transliteration)
a light Meaning (Definition)

NASB Translation
broad (1), dawn (1), dawn* (1), daylight (1), daylight* (1), early morning (1), light (105), lightning (5), lights (2), sun (1), sunlight (1), sunshine (1).

Brown-Driver-Briggs
אוֺר1 light as diffused in nature, light of day Genesis 1:3,4,5 (P) Job 3:9; Job 38:19 +.

2 morning light, dawn, אוֺר הַבֹּקֶר light of the morning Judges 16:2; 1 Samuel 14:36; 1 Samuel 25:34,36; 2 Samuel 17:22; 2 Kings 7:9; Micah 2:1; בֹּקֶר ׳א 2 Samuel 23:4 (poem of David); ׳עַדהָֿא Judges 19:26 (compare עַדהַֿבֹּקֶר Judges 19:25); לָאוֺרJob 24:14; מִןהָֿאוֺר עַד מַחֲצִית הַיּוֺם from dawn till mid-day, Nehemiah 8:3 compare Proverbs 4:18.

3 light of the heavenly luminaries; הַלְּבָנָה ׳א, "" הַחַמָּה ׳א moonlight & sunlight Isaiah 30:26; כּוֺכְבֵי אוֺר stars of light Psalm 148:3; מְאוֺרֵי אוֺר luminaries of light Ezekiel 32:8; אוֺרִים= מְאוֺרִים Psalm 136:7; so עֲלֵיאֿוֺר in sunshine Isaiah 18:4; the sun itself Job 31:26.

4 daylight אוֺר רְשָׁעִים light of the wicked Job 38:15 (their work-day being the night); יוֺם אוֺר a day of light Amos 8:9 (= a clear, sunshiny day).
.....................

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
bright, clear, day, lightning, morning, sun
From 'owr; illumination or (concrete) luminary (in every sense, including lightning, happiness, etc.) -- bright, clear, + day, light (-ning), morning, sun.

see HEBREW 'owr
.................

Genesis 1:16 God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night. And He made the stars as well.
Strong's Hebrew: 3974. מָאוֹר (maor) -- a luminary
מָאוֹר Hebrew
maor English (Transliteration)
a luminary Meaning (Definition)

NASB Translation
bright (1), light (12), lighting (2), lights (3), shining (1).

Brown-Driver-Briggs
מָאוֺר noun masculine luminary — absolute Genesis 1:16 +; construct מְאוֺר Proverbs 15:30 +; plural מְאוֺרֹת Genesis 1:15; מְאֹרֹת Genesis 1:14; Genesis 1:16; construct מְאוֺרֵי Ezekiel 32:8 — light, light-bearer, luminary, lamp, of sun & moon Genesis 1:14,15,16 (3 t. in verse) (P) Ezekiel 32:8; moon Psalm 74:16; מְנֹרַת הַמָּאוֺר the lamp-stand of the luminary or light (where ׳הַמּ is sum of seven sacred lamps on golden lamp-stand) Exodus 35:14 (twice in verse); Exodus 35:28; Exodus 39:37; Numbers 4:9,16, compare Exodus 25:6; Exodus 27:20; Exodus 35:8; Leviticus 24:2 (all P); מְאוֺרעֵֿינַיִם יְשַׂמַּחלֵֿב֑ Proverbs 15:30 the luminary of the eyes (= the eyes as a lamp) gives the light of joy to the heart; מְאוֺר מָּנֶיךָ Psalm 90:8 the luminary of thy face (thy face as a lamp) in the light of which the secrets are exposed. ...........

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
bright, light
Or maor {maw-ore'}; also (in plural) feminine mpowrah {meh-o-raw'}; or morah {meh-o-raw'}; from 'owr; properly, a luminous body or luminary, i.e. (abstractly) light (as an element): figuratively, brightness, i.e.cheerfulness; specifically, a chandelier -- bright, light.


Why would the writer use to different Hebrew words for light - one the light, and the other the light source?
Was it that the poor guy was an ignorant peasant who did not know what he was writing?
Or was it that he knew exactly what he was saying, and used the correct Hebrew expressions, so as to be clearly understood?
It seems to me, the later, since the Bible has proven itself to be God's word, and not the thoughts of mere humans. It is expected that the writers were accurate in what they were guided by God, to convey.

So, from my reading and understanding of the account, the sun existed before the earth.
I said this before, didn't I? Others here have said it more than once. I will not repeat.
From Chapter 1 verse 14, God made the luminaries visible in the firmament, or the earth's atmosphere.

Later.

It does not matter where we know the light to be from today. It matters what the Bible says. By reading Genesis it is rather apparent that the writers of it did not fully understand that the Sun was the cause of the light. Let's look at the verse of Genesis:

Genesis 1 13-15:

11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds. And it was so 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

Genesis 1 16-19

" 16 God made two great lights—the greater light the day and the lesser light to govern the night He also made the stars.17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day."



But as you see third day, God made plants. Fourth day, God made the Sun.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Right. So since I am not able to respond to all these posts with 1, 2, 3, 4 5, 6, persons responding to every post I make (I won't have any time to live if I tried to keep up), I will make things easy for everyone, including myself.
I will return to what is claimed to be good science - namely the idea that all life came from one common ancestor, and that will be my only focus going forward.
That I will do, after putting any other - what I consider minor - claims to rest.

Starting with the claim that the Genesis account says that the sun came after plants.
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
In the beginning God created what? The heavens, and the earth.
Genesis 1:2 Now the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.
There was what? Darkness upon the earth's watery deep.
Genesis 1:3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
What illuminated the waters? Light came to be. I won't bother to ask why. I can make a pretty good guess though. Could it be for what was to happen next?

Now I wonder where the light came from?
Strong's Hebrew: 216. אוֹר (or) -- a light
אוֹר Hebrew
or English (Transliteration)
a light Meaning (Definition)

NASB Translation
broad (1), dawn (1), dawn* (1), daylight (1), daylight* (1), early morning (1), light (105), lightning (5), lights (2), sun (1), sunlight (1), sunshine (1).

Brown-Driver-Briggs
אוֺר1 light as diffused in nature, light of day Genesis 1:3,4,5 (P) Job 3:9; Job 38:19 +.

2 morning light, dawn, אוֺר הַבֹּקֶר light of the morning Judges 16:2; 1 Samuel 14:36; 1 Samuel 25:34,36; 2 Samuel 17:22; 2 Kings 7:9; Micah 2:1; בֹּקֶר ׳א 2 Samuel 23:4 (poem of David); ׳עַדהָֿא Judges 19:26 (compare עַדהַֿבֹּקֶר Judges 19:25); לָאוֺרJob 24:14; מִןהָֿאוֺר עַד מַחֲצִית הַיּוֺם from dawn till mid-day, Nehemiah 8:3 compare Proverbs 4:18.

3 light of the heavenly luminaries; הַלְּבָנָה ׳א, "" הַחַמָּה ׳א moonlight & sunlight Isaiah 30:26; כּוֺכְבֵי אוֺר stars of light Psalm 148:3; מְאוֺרֵי אוֺר luminaries of light Ezekiel 32:8; אוֺרִים= מְאוֺרִים Psalm 136:7; so עֲלֵיאֿוֺר in sunshine Isaiah 18:4; the sun itself Job 31:26.

4 daylight אוֺר רְשָׁעִים light of the wicked Job 38:15 (their work-day being the night); יוֺם אוֺר a day of light Amos 8:9 (= a clear, sunshiny day).
.....................

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
bright, clear, day, lightning, morning, sun
From 'owr; illumination or (concrete) luminary (in every sense, including lightning, happiness, etc.) -- bright, clear, + day, light (-ning), morning, sun.

see HEBREW 'owr
.................

Genesis 1:16 God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night. And He made the stars as well.
Strong's Hebrew: 3974. מָאוֹר (maor) -- a luminary
מָאוֹר Hebrew
maor English (Transliteration)
a luminary Meaning (Definition)

NASB Translation
bright (1), light (12), lighting (2), lights (3), shining (1).

Brown-Driver-Briggs
מָאוֺר noun masculine luminary — absolute Genesis 1:16 +; construct מְאוֺר Proverbs 15:30 +; plural מְאוֺרֹת Genesis 1:15; מְאֹרֹת Genesis 1:14; Genesis 1:16; construct מְאוֺרֵי Ezekiel 32:8 — light, light-bearer, luminary, lamp, of sun & moon Genesis 1:14,15,16 (3 t. in verse) (P) Ezekiel 32:8; moon Psalm 74:16; מְנֹרַת הַמָּאוֺר the lamp-stand of the luminary or light (where ׳הַמּ is sum of seven sacred lamps on golden lamp-stand) Exodus 35:14 (twice in verse); Exodus 35:28; Exodus 39:37; Numbers 4:9,16, compare Exodus 25:6; Exodus 27:20; Exodus 35:8; Leviticus 24:2 (all P); מְאוֺרעֵֿינַיִם יְשַׂמַּחלֵֿב֑ Proverbs 15:30 the luminary of the eyes (= the eyes as a lamp) gives the light of joy to the heart; מְאוֺר מָּנֶיךָ Psalm 90:8 the luminary of thy face (thy face as a lamp) in the light of which the secrets are exposed. ...........

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
bright, light
Or maor {maw-ore'}; also (in plural) feminine mpowrah {meh-o-raw'}; or morah {meh-o-raw'}; from 'owr; properly, a luminous body or luminary, i.e. (abstractly) light (as an element): figuratively, brightness, i.e.cheerfulness; specifically, a chandelier -- bright, light.


Why would the writer use to different Hebrew words for light - one the light, and the other the light source?
Was it that the poor guy was an ignorant peasant who did not know what he was writing?
Or was it that he knew exactly what he was saying, and used the correct Hebrew expressions, so as to be clearly understood?
It seems to me, the later, since the Bible has proven itself to be God's word, and not the thoughts of mere humans. It is expected that the writers were accurate in what they were guided by God, to convey.

So, from my reading and understanding of the account, the sun existed before the earth.
I said this before, didn't I? Others here have said it more than once. I will not repeat.
From Chapter 1 verse 14, God made the luminaries visible in the firmament, or the earth's atmosphere.

Later.

It is like a Gish Gallop on steroids and even more intentionally confusing than the work of that infamous creationist. It says so much and says nothing at all.

Of course there are the gratuitous and obligatory answers in the form of new claims not established as fact. Still we are left with plants existing before the creation of the sun which is the clear and unambiguous claim of the text.

I thought you studied the Bible, but you really studied verbal tap dancing and diversionary tactics. All this double talk does not hide fact that you are declaring your conclusions true without establishing their validity.

I cannot wait to see what kind of fiction you come up with to explain away the theory of common descent. A Lord of the Dance response that will no doubt be epic in its proportion, but microscopic in its substance.

You just cannot seem to help yourself. What you call support for your claim rests on new claims that also require validation and support, but arrive per usual without any.

What I am unable to determine is whether you do this willfully or if your dissonance is so overpowering that all this mendacity is the natural consequence arising from an effort to rationalize away all the inconsistencies you tether together.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It does not matter where we know the light to be from today. It matters what the Bible says. By reading Genesis it is rather apparent that the writers of it did not fully understand that the Sun was the cause of the light. Let's look at the verse of Genesis:

Genesis 1 13-15:

11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds. And it was so 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

Genesis 1 16-19

" 16 God made two great lights—the greater light the day and the lesser light to govern the night He also made the stars.17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day."



But as you see third day, God made plants. Fourth day, God made the Sun.

From a reading of Genesis 1, creation is really all over the place. You have the heavens and earth made in the beginning and the specific objects of that make up the heavens created days later. We have no sun, but there is light, then he makes the sun so there can be light. Then to claim that this confusing allegory is the actual word of God is the most ludicrous claim yet.

As you demonstrate, the unambiguous claim of Genesis 1 is that plants were created before the sun. And this does not even bring in Genesis 2, where the Genesis 1 order is thrown out and an entirely different order is described.

 

[sayak83]

Right. So since I am not able to respond to all these posts with 1, 2, 3, 4 5, 6, persons responding to every post I make (I won't have any time to live if I tried to keep up), I will make things easy for everyone, including myself.
I will return to what is claimed to be good science - namely the idea that all life came from one common ancestor, and that will be my only focus going forward.
That I will do, after putting any other - what I consider minor - claims to rest.

Starting with the claim that the Genesis account says that the sun came after plants.
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
In the beginning God created what? The heavens, and the earth.
Genesis 1:2 Now the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.
There was what? Darkness upon the earth's watery deep.
Genesis 1:3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
What illuminated the waters? Light came to be. I won't bother to ask why. I can make a pretty good guess though. Could it be for what was to happen next?

Now I wonder where the light came from?
Strong's Hebrew: 216. אוֹר (or) -- a light
אוֹר Hebrew
or English (Transliteration)
a light Meaning (Definition)

NASB Translation
broad (1), dawn (1), dawn* (1), daylight (1), daylight* (1), early morning (1), light (105), lightning (5), lights (2), sun (1), sunlight (1), sunshine (1).

Brown-Driver-Briggs
אוֺר1 light as diffused in nature, light of day Genesis 1:3,4,5 (P) Job 3:9; Job 38:19 +.

2 morning light, dawn, אוֺר הַבֹּקֶר light of the morning Judges 16:2; 1 Samuel 14:36; 1 Samuel 25:34,36; 2 Samuel 17:22; 2 Kings 7:9; Micah 2:1; בֹּקֶר ׳א 2 Samuel 23:4 (poem of David); ׳עַדהָֿא Judges 19:26 (compare עַדהַֿבֹּקֶר Judges 19:25); לָאוֺרJob 24:14; מִןהָֿאוֺר עַד מַחֲצִית הַיּוֺם from dawn till mid-day, Nehemiah 8:3 compare Proverbs 4:18.

3 light of the heavenly luminaries; הַלְּבָנָה ׳א, "" הַחַמָּה ׳א moonlight & sunlight Isaiah 30:26; כּוֺכְבֵי אוֺר stars of light Psalm 148:3; מְאוֺרֵי אוֺר luminaries of light Ezekiel 32:8; אוֺרִים= מְאוֺרִים Psalm 136:7; so עֲלֵיאֿוֺר in sunshine Isaiah 18:4; the sun itself Job 31:26.

4 daylight אוֺר רְשָׁעִים light of the wicked Job 38:15 (their work-day being the night); יוֺם אוֺר a day of light Amos 8:9 (= a clear, sunshiny day).
.....................

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
bright, clear, day, lightning, morning, sun
From 'owr; illumination or (concrete) luminary (in every sense, including lightning, happiness, etc.) -- bright, clear, + day, light (-ning), morning, sun.

see HEBREW 'owr
.................

Genesis 1:16 God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night. And He made the stars as well.
Strong's Hebrew: 3974. מָאוֹר (maor) -- a luminary
מָאוֹר Hebrew
maor English (Transliteration)
a luminary Meaning (Definition)

NASB Translation
bright (1), light (12), lighting (2), lights (3), shining (1).

Brown-Driver-Briggs
מָאוֺר noun masculine luminary — absolute Genesis 1:16 +; construct מְאוֺר Proverbs 15:30 +; plural מְאוֺרֹת Genesis 1:15; מְאֹרֹת Genesis 1:14; Genesis 1:16; construct מְאוֺרֵי Ezekiel 32:8 — light, light-bearer, luminary, lamp, of sun & moon Genesis 1:14,15,16 (3 t. in verse) (P) Ezekiel 32:8; moon Psalm 74:16; מְנֹרַת הַמָּאוֺר the lamp-stand of the luminary or light (where ׳הַמּ is sum of seven sacred lamps on golden lamp-stand) Exodus 35:14 (twice in verse); Exodus 35:28; Exodus 39:37; Numbers 4:9,16, compare Exodus 25:6; Exodus 27:20; Exodus 35:8; Leviticus 24:2 (all P); מְאוֺרעֵֿינַיִם יְשַׂמַּחלֵֿב֑ Proverbs 15:30 the luminary of the eyes (= the eyes as a lamp) gives the light of joy to the heart; מְאוֺר מָּנֶיךָ Psalm 90:8 the luminary of thy face (thy face as a lamp) in the light of which the secrets are exposed. ...........

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
bright, light
Or maor {maw-ore'}; also (in plural) feminine mpowrah {meh-o-raw'}; or morah {meh-o-raw'}; from 'owr; properly, a luminous body or luminary, i.e. (abstractly) light (as an element): figuratively, brightness, i.e.cheerfulness; specifically, a chandelier -- bright, light.


Why would the writer use to different Hebrew words for light - one the light, and the other the light source?
Was it that the poor guy was an ignorant peasant who did not know what he was writing?
Or was it that he knew exactly what he was saying, and used the correct Hebrew expressions, so as to be clearly understood?
It seems to me, the later, since the Bible has proven itself to be God's word, and not the thoughts of mere humans. It is expected that the writers were accurate in what they were guided by God, to convey.

So, from my reading and understanding of the account, the sun existed before the earth.
I said this before, didn't I? Others here have said it more than once. I will not repeat.
From Chapter 1 verse 14, God made the luminaries visible in the firmament, or the earth's atmosphere.

Later.

I could not make head or tail of this post. I suspect very few others will be able to either. Explain again, clearly this time.
The simplest explanation of using different words is to have a poetic effect, as is common is most poetical writing. Gen 1 is clearly hymn like in nature.

It is highly unlikely, given current knowledge of biology, that all life came from a single common ancestor. It is true that all complex life (eukaryotes) came from a single ancestral source population but, more simpler life forms (like bacteria) engage in reproduction and gene transfer strategies that makes the idea of a single common ancestor of life meaningless. They are more aptly describes as a large population of co-evolving life forms....one of which evolved to create the more complex type of life (animal and plant life) that we are a part of today.

 

[Patriottechsan]

The original light was Gods Glory. BTW Just for clarification. Jesus is actually thee creator God. Read Colossians first chapter & John 1:1.

Earth w/o form & void is easy to explain. The Bible uses the potter & clay example often for many reasons. It applies here too. A potter makes the clay. It is w/o form & void. Then the potter makes & forms the clay into what he wants from that initial formless clay. God/Jesus did likewise with the earth. The 2 different lights were made for this planet etc for many reasons explained in Genesis.

Remember each day is described so precisely as a 24 hour period that a 6 yr old grasp that is a day & then numbered in consecutive numerical order.

It's those that try to compromise on the Bible that keep messing it up. It is inerrant. Otherwise you can't trust any of it because then you leave it to infallible men to pick & choose. God & Jesus Himself validated the Genesis creation account & the Bibles inerrancy.

Key will always be. Is Jesus who He claimed to be. If so then He as Son of God & actual creator is the only way to heaven since He can't lie.

Eternity is too long to be wrong!

There have been so many out to disprove the Bible & Jesus yet as honest academic researchers came through it as fully dedicated Christians much to their surprise.

How many of you are willing to read their stories & research since eternity is at stake.

See no other figure of any other religion ever claimed to be God or the way to salvation or to die for your sins. Others just claimed to be prophets. If I'm smart & want to cut my research time short. Check Jesus first.

God Bless!

Just a few quick thoughts.

 

[Windwalker]

I know that I get a bit zealous in my defense of science, but the contrived ignorance, complete lack of any rational position or understanding, argument by assertion and barrage of logical fallacies by creationists coupled with that smug, arrogant attitude of false superiority indulges my passion. You would think after 20 years of debating them, I should expect exactly what I get, but I suppose I keep hoping one of them may have an few independent thoughts and the courage to entertain them.

I hear you. Despite the degree of awareness and knowledge into these things I've amassed over the years, you'd think I'd have lowered my expectations too. But I'm forever the optimist that reason and rationality would prevail in the most obvious of errors, such as reading Genesis as science, only to have the data from my experience with it repeatedly not support that belief of my own. I can understand rationally the reasons why I shouldn't, but emotionally, like Fox Mulder, "I want to believe."

I'll share here the reasons why we shouldn't have that expectation. Coming to terms with that realization is another thing however. The reasons why it doesn't register, and in fact cannot register, is answered in understanding what it being presented through the frameworks of developmental stages. They apply to everyone one of us. We all grow through them, one stage built upon the previous stage, and they all utilize appropriate frameworks or structures of consciousness in order to support that current given stage. They are literally different modes of awareness or consciousness with different types of reasoning. They constitute actual different lived realities, in which we "live and move and have our being".

If we were to understand Modernity as the Age of Reason, or the "Rational' stage, which would include modern science and the tools of modernity applied to things like view on history, literature, comparative religious studies, and so forth, these are beyond what the previous stage in human development had created which was the Mythic stage. In that structure of consciousness, the things of the natural world are perceived to be controlled and influenced by an external force, or a deity of some type. Everything is filtered through that lens, and things that don't support, or fit into that mode of perception, are naturally rejected. We all reject modes of thought which do not make sense given our current mode or stage.

These modes are not consciously seen or recognized by us from the inside, because it is the very set of eyes were are perceiving through. It constitutes our subjective reality. And that applies to the stage of rationality as it does to the mythic stage, or to the magic stage before that, etc.

But here's where it gets interesting and answers why you have such things modern phenomena as the pseudosciences, such as Creationism. Creationism, being birthed by modern Christian Fundamentalists, is an attempt to adopt and utilize the language of Modernity in order to compete against Modernity utilizing it's modes of thoughts. However, it's not truly utilizing them. It's merely adopting or imitating the form. It's not truly rational, but pseudo-rational, or pseudoscientific.

There are a myriad of examples where this can be seen where ideas and insights of the more advanced stages along the line of known human development, which researchers have mapped out with supporting data, such as ego development, cognitive development, faith development, etc. For instance, the mantra "I'm entitled to my opinion" in attempts to elevate their losing arguments to support their claims, is an appeal to postmodernist relativism, as if that means the weight of their beliefs are equal to other more supported beliefs. That is a co-opting of a higher, more sophisticated understanding, misapplied to themselves in making claims without support. You hear Donald Trump do this on a regular basis with "alternative facts" and whatnot.

In order to help to not be confused by seeing things like "science", coming from the Rational stage, or Modernity, developmentalists look not at the type of language being used, but the style in which it is being used. It is the style, which exposes the level or stage of consciouenss holding and using that language. The language and content of postmodernity used by someone at the Mythic stage, will always not align with the postmodern understanding and use of it. Think of the stages as containers or contexts, which change the content to fit the context.

So Creationism then. As you can see, it utilizes the language of Modernity, but from within the container of a mythic-reality. In a mythic-reality, gods and whatnot are perfectly appropriate. Modern science however is not a fit. So its language then, in an attempt to offer an "answer" to modernity, is stolen from Modernity and used to support a Mythic reality. The style of argument you see for instance in a Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye debate type situation (which is exactly what this thread is), is the former mythic stage of a Ken Ham, trying to validate themselves by using the language of science to make mythic stages "sciencey".

Now, some take this as a "put down" to the mythic stage. But it sincerely is not. We all are at different stages in different areas of our lives. These different areas are mapped out as different lines of development. Examples would be development of morals, kinesthetic abilities, mathematical lines, cognitive, musical, faith development, and more. In all lines of development that follow the same basic stages of growth, which can be called using one model, archaic, to magic, to mythic, to rational, to pluralistic, to integral, and beyond. In some lines, I'm just a child operating at the earlier stages, in others I'm more advanced. This true of all of us. And furthermore, no one skips or bypasses earlier stages.

So to use this understanding to "put others down" is juvenile reasoning, like a 12 year old mocking an 8 year old for being 8. An 8 year old is not a broken 12 year old.

So all that is to provide at the least a larger container in which to hold and consider these things. But coming to terms with them emotionally, where we are simply accepting of a Ken Ham trying to imitate Modern science by putting Velociraptors in the Garden of Eden and explaining the Grand Canyon using the myth of Noah's Flood, does in fact make one want to pull one's hair and scream, "This isn't rational!" The answer is, of course it isn't. The style of argument is mythic, not rational. Ken Ham versus Bill Nye, was a staged debate not about Creationism vs. Science. It was about the Mythic stage trying to be the Rational stage.

That is what fundamentalism is, and why it is modern. It is the mythic stage trying to be respected by its older sibling, the rational stage.

Sorry if this is a little long, but I spend altogether too much time considering these things.

P.S. One other thought to add to this. Why I feel fundamentalism is a dysfunctional aspect of mythic-religion, and is NOT representative of traditional mythic religious stages, is precisely because its focus is on being Modernistic, when it isn't. It degrades the truths and values that mythic religion brings to us as a culture in our evolution.

It's neither really traditional, nor modern. It turns religious sentiment into pseudo-modernity. It's quasi-rationality loses touch with the deeper, metaphoric reality of the mythic symbolism, which is rich and vast in its reach, and lives within all of us (cf. Carl Jung). Fundamentalism is the red-headed step child of traditional mythic religion.

(In many ways it's early mythic, or the transitional magic-mythic stage, trying to be post mythic, or better or more "reasonable" that traditionalist views by being "sciencey").

BTW, all of the above is my opinion, based upon the depths of research and years of personal experience with this. Please note that, also in my signature line below.

 

[Patriottechsan]

Let me ask you a question. If you'll be honest & not act like such an intellectually superior to anyone that could possibly come to a different conclusion than you.

I've found everyone like you. Has truly NEVER TRULY & HONESTLY actually spent time truly researching the other sides answers & answers to rebuttals etc. You tend to only read your own stuff to reinforce yourself & congratulate yourself among yourselves how smart you are.

My question to you is this. How serious are you & how serious would you take research into creationist answers & rebuttals based on science & the Bible & any answers you have there too.

Here is why I ask.

I, before getting so injured in 3 non at fault car wrecks that put me on permanent disability. I used to work out a lot. Well at the gym I once worked out. I always seriously worked out but openly discussed my faith & why evolution is bad science. BTW I have 2 Masters. All 3 of my degrees have academic rewards attached.

Anyway there was an older gentleman there that challenged me to a debate on evolution, the Bible, Jesus & Christianity etc. He had 2 Dr degrees from GA Tech in Engineering. He had heart issues & had moved where I did to be close to his daughter from Atlanta. He was an aggressive atheist & had challenged many Christians before & won. He was really wanting to debate me as a creationist & Biblical inerrancy Christian too. I accepted the debate but only after we set some firm ground rules. One of which was that each of us had to read whatever material the other gave. Only exception was if one of us had strong objections to that author & could show good reason that their bias was so profound it discredited their work. We had to show it to the other & they had to agree to drop it. It happened only once. He agreed to drop the author he gave after I presented him more info to discredit them. He accepted it & on we went.

We debated 3 days a week for 1 hour each day while walking side by side on a treadmill. It lasted 2 yrs. He is by far the most intelligent man I've ever debated. Yet unlike others. He was also despite his extreme. bias very honest academically. So he followed the rules. Once a subject was decided it was over. It couldn't be revisited. The winner on that point was decided & over. To his amazement at the start I conceded a few things to him which really made him feel he already had me beat. I conceded that when we got to the Bible, Jesus & inerrancy. I would have to prove that the Bible was inerrant w/o any compromise like theistic evolution. I had to prove Jesus was Gods Son & the actual creator & due to that it meant Jesus couldn't lie & therefore Christianity is the only way to salvation. Which of course he wasn't to interested in but we were going to go that far as long as I kept proving my points. Which of course he never thought I'd be able to do.

As the debate kept going he kept saying I've never meant a Christian as devoted or as knowledgeable as you & as able to defend your faith. Esp when those that compromise like I've usually met lose to me because of the compromise & what it does to the Bible & Jesus. I told him. That's why I conceded that to you upfront. I realize that. So I put it all on me as uncompromising to prove my points. Yet I had to have you be honest academically & do your part. If you let your bias rule you & don't ever even read & look at what we have then you'd never have the chance to see the truth. Plus as an Engineer with 2 Dr.s the thing I counted on was he truly understands how things truly work & esp in reality. Not the just so stories of evolution they admit to telling.

That's why it only took one week to get him to fully accept ID & reject evolution. Since this was a personal not school class. I was to show who that ID was.

Over the rest of those 2 yrs. He & I became pretty close despite debating 3 times a week. We fully respected each other. Despite me only having 2 Masters unlike his 2 Dr.s degrees. Man was he intelligent & well informed in lots of stuff. We both respected each other as equals intellectually. Plus we knew we both knew our areas well. But we knew each other wouldn't know everything right away always to answer. So we always gave the other some time to research for an answer or rebuttal etc.

Anyway, to finish this story. At the end of the 2 yrs. We finished on a Friday afternoon. At the end I concluded by telling him. When we started we had these objectives. As you now know & have admitted as we've traveled this road together. You now know intellectually you could ever need to know. Now you are at the point of decision time. What will you do about it. Will you accept Christ as your Savior? He said Yes but not here in front of everyone. I said let's walk to your car. We did & he prayed with me to accept Christ.

Neither of us knew how key it was at that time. He died that weekend of a fatal heart attack. I never got to see him again. I never got to disciple him in the faith. But I get to see him again someday. It just proves how there is no better time than the present. ETERNITY IS TOO LONG TO BE WRONG!

Will you despite your bias like his be willing to be an honest academic? Will you actually read the material from sites that now exist that didn't when this debate occurred. If not it's a waste of time.

I have some favorite sites I like to use. Plus you can enroll there & they send you free info & one a free magazine monthly. You'll be shocked at how well it is done & it's written mostly by former evolutionist, that's the only way to be trained today. Yet due to the science problems they are now exevolutionist & creationist due to the science. You'll have to read it to see the science that changed them. Esp for age of earth It will shock you but shows again how you are hidden from science that proves this from evolutionist own research

So tell me if interested & if you or anyone else would be academically honest. You can search per topic & then enroll for free info. I'll come back & give the sites.

Oh might as well list them now. This has gotten so long already.

www.icr.org

www.apologeticspress.org

www.creationministriesinternation.com

www.creation.com

www.searchfortruth.net

www.reasonablefaith.org

www.creation.com/15-questions

www.jesus-is-savior.com

Last you can download book for free
www.foolishfaith.com/book.asp

Hope you enjoy if you so choose. I'd highly recommend enrolling getting the free email science updates from first 3. & ICR will also send free monthly magazine

 

[ecco]

I am going to bet that no one here argues for or against what you are saying here, because I doubt that anyone will understand what it is you are talking about?

Ya got that right!

 

[ecco]

All of that on the 4th day after vegetation was already growing... somehow... perhaps "miracle light" of some sort? I don't know. I can't figure that out. Do you have any revelation how plants grew before the sun and moon existed? You could make some converts here if you can explain that one reasonably well. Please enlighten.

You are not much of a farmer, are you? Plants can easily last a day without sunshine. That's especially true when the plants are freshly created by God. Even if the "day" was millions of years, Godly plants would have survived with no sunshine.



Yes, the above is sarcasm.

 

[ecco]

From what I'm sensing I wonder if they either actively or subtly discourage learning anything outside belief-sanctioned knowledge which does not support their views. I could be wrong, but there's a lot of anti-intellectualism going on here from what I'm gathering.

The JW's are not necessarily alone in that regard. Many other conservative Christians also denigrate science.