You're forgetting the bit where God refers to "Heaven" as the "Firmament". The firmament was a physical thing. Something that could fall, and more importantly something that held the sun, stars & moon in place.
Whos' god?
-
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!
No Telescope, No Microscope
- Thread starter Neo Deist
- Start date
dust1n
Zindīq
If "heavens" included the Sun, then why does he make the sun again?
"1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth"
God creates the stars and the Earth. The Earth had no light. Then God created the light. The Seas. The Plants. And Then the Sun and Stars again for some reason...
psychoslice
Veteran Member
And that's the problem, we are becoming too smart for our own good.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
The firmament used to be an odd concept for cosmologists, they used to think celestial objects just floated in empty space- before we knew of such things as the fabric of space-time, dark energy, physical forces that very much hold the heavens in place, in a very specific orderly way
That's not true. The concept of 'Aether' was known to Ancient civilizations. While 'aether' is still wrong, it's less-wrong than the idea of a solid "dome" covering the (flat) earth.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
There would have been light visible before being distinguishable as 'great luminaries'
dust1n
Zindīq
What? It doesn't say God distinguished between two great lights, it says he made them? Also, even if I was wrong about that, what you are saying is that the Bible doesn't state that God made by the Earth before he made the sun, which would be wrong. You are saying that the Bible states that Sun, the Earth, and all the other stars were made at the same time, which is also patently wrong, being confirmed by telescopes and all.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
Isaiah 40:22 "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in."
The unfolding of a tent is an extremely elegant way to represent an otherwise conceptually difficult concept- lesser/flat dimensions being stretched/ curved to create greater dimensions of space in the universe
Again something we have only recently begun to appreciate.
There will always be unsolved mysteries in the Bible that the light of science has not yet explained, but isn't that just atheism of the gaps again?
Not an atheist.
And how is that anything but "built a flat sky to cover the grasshoppers with"?
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
according to Wiki
Age of 4.543 billion years
Age of sun ≈4.6 billion years
pretty much the same time yes, depending on how one defines each object. But the Bible wasn't meant to be a scientific cheat sheet, creation is for us to explore and learn about, that's the best way to appreciate anything.
But Genesis does give a concise, brief, poetic, and remarkably accurate account of creation- as would make sense to a wide range of peoples, cultures, times, levels of knowledge etc
certainly when compared with the prior atheist view that the entire universe was static and eternal!!
outhouse
Atheistically
It factually does not.
creation is mythology
and not one bit of the biblical account is anything but mythology, with no accuracy what so ever beyond wild guessing, and imaginative mental hurdles
outhouse
Atheistically
What date, what time period exactly did this take place?
how many thousands or millions of years ago are you talking about?
No, because a person who doubts that the Bible is inerrant doesn't have to be an atheist. They could be a deist, a member of another religion or even a Christian (not all think it's perfect).
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
It gets into some conceptually tricky areas, but our best guess is the heavens are in fact flat right? (and has a similar number of stars as grains of sand)
Why is the Universe flat and not spherical?
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/ab...-the-universe-flat-and-not-spherical-advanced
dust1n
Zindīq
Around 457,000,000 years apart. Pretty much the same time. Kind of like how the Jurassic Age and humankind happened at pretty much the same time.
It wasn't meant to be scientific cheat sheet, or even scientifically correct, accurate, or reasonable.
Despite the fact it is neither concise nor remarkably accurate. It's actually riddled with inaccuracies. For example, there were already animals existing before seed-bearing fruit, but it's neither here nor there.
This wasn't necessarily an atheist point of view. Newton proposed classical mechanics and an eternal static universe, and he was a Christian his whole life. That matters probably little to you though.
outhouse
Atheistically
Not much credible academic knowledge is accepted by said person. Lots of denial and refusal of credible knowledge
No, far more stars than sand, at least than there is sand on Earth.
How does that help the "tent" metaphor? It still claims that the tent was placed over us, not that we were originally in the tent until he unraveled it.
Again, I'm not an atheist. One of the things I find most compelling about the Norse pagan traditions is how well the idea of "Ragnarok" fits in with the concept of heat-death and eventual collapse of the universe.
dust1n
Zindīq
Must be a lot of work bending every single piece of new information to fit a preformed conception of the world. I guess the internal dissonance of there not being a God protecting us as individuals is far greater for some than the internal dissonance of harboring totally contradictory sets of standards.
That seems to vary from calculation to calculation. In most estimates, you are right: stars outnumber grains of sand by a large margin. I have seen one, however, that says the lower bound estimate of the number of stars could be comparable to an upper bound estimate for number of sand grains. It's very difficult to make a precise calculation because, well, where does a beach end and the mainland begin? How far down does a beach go until it hits bedrock?