Not even Christians believe the *edit* of creation

[GardenLady]

You do realize that you are calling the National Council of Churches of the United States of America stupid, right? That is the organization that holds the copyright on the New Revised Standard Version, Updated Edition that we've been discussing.

Why limit yourself to one translation? The KJV and the NIV say, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

 

[shunyadragon]

Why limit yourself to one translation? The KJV and the NIV say, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

OK, but many believe that the KJV or the KJV Revised is the only true translation. Others like the Roman Church (RCC) continue their Bible the only true version. The provenance of the Bible and the Torah are extremely questionable regardless.

There are good comparative works that even compare writings not in the Bible such as the Complete Gospels edited by Robert Miller,

 

[GardenLady]

OK, but many believe that the KJV or the KJV Revised is the only true translation.

And yet the KJV and the KJV revised differ on the verse that is the key of the OP.

 

[shunyadragon]

And yet the KJV and the KJV revised differ on the verse that is the key of the OP.

The corrections were based on legitimate new findings and research not known at the time of the original KJV.

My argument is that the provenance of the Bible is the main issue not which translation is correct.

 

[Brian2]

There’s nothing in the story that says that God created either the substance of the Earth or the waters. You are assuming he did so.

There must be something in the story that says that God created everything from nothing. As far as I know, the Jews, who use the translation that you like and want to use, believe that God created everything from nothing.
There is nothing in the story that says that the substance of the earth and/or waters were already in existence.
The fact is that both the translations say that God created the heavens and earth, not that God made the heavens and earth from pre existing material.

My interpretation is based on the fact that the belief that the universe began as an ocean of water was widespread at the time that this story was written-- and we have evidence from the Bible itself that the Israelites came into direct contact with people who held that belief. So it would have been perfectly natural for the authors of the Bible to have written a story that was based on the idea of a universe filled with water.

You tell us here that your interpretation is based on the assumption the Bible has to mean what other cultures of the day believed. You assume the answer, that the Bible must mean what other cultures believed. That is circular reasoning, esp when the Bible does not say that.

As for the idea that the darkness was over an ocean on the Earth, that neglects the fact that the events of Day 2 specifically say that there are waters above the sky. You earlier claimed that those waters were contained in rain clouds. But the story also says that on Day 4 God set the sun, the moon, and the stars inside the dome of the sky. So the waters that are above the dome of the sky must be above the sun, the moon, and the stars. That’s not a description of an ocean on the earth. That’s a description of a universe filled with water. Your picture of the biblical cosmology is upside down.

The Biblical cosmology that we are told the ancient Jews believed is one thing but the cosmology that we can understand from what we have learned from science, can also fit with what the Bible tells us. There is nothing wrong with being informed about Biblical interpretation through science.
Day 2 says that the waters were above the sky, and in those days the clouds, and whatever other waters there were, were probably above the atmosphere to a degree. (esp going by Job 38:9 which gives a picture of clouds extending quite a distance from the earth, and why not when there would have been no atmosphere to stop that from happening).
Sites like these show that science (even though it is still theorising) might be on the right track when it speaks about clouds around the early earth which allow light in but not necessarily allowing the sun and moon etc to be seen clearly.

Clouds May Hold Key to Why Early Earth Didn’t Freeze Over

Solution to 'young' sun paradox proposed through thinner clouds on early Earth.

www.space.com

Haze clears on ancient Earth's early atmosphere

Our planet flipped back and forth between a thick haze and clear skies 2.5 billion years ago

www.newscientist.com

Loading…

www.researchgate.net

Earth, climate and clouds - University of Victoria

Climatologists have a Precambrian problem: early in Earth's history the sun was dimmer, but the Earth wasn't colder.

www.uvic.ca

Haze clears on ancient Earth's early atmosphere

Our planet flipped back and forth between a thick haze and clear skies 2.5 billion years ago

www.newscientist.com

Gen 1:1 tells us that God was creating the heavens and the earth. This means that God was creating the early stars, sun, moon etc.
Darkness was on the ocean on the earth and thick clouds covered the earth and God began to allow light through the clouds. Then on day 4 the sun and moon etc could be seen more clearly and phenomenologically (which is the language used in the Bible a lot) the sun, moon etc then looked to be in the atmosphere (just as phenomenologically the sun looked to be going around the earth and was spoken of that way).
The phenomenon of the sun, moon and stars looking to be in the atmosphere and below the transparent clouds was not the case all the time however and these days the clouds cover the sun, moon etc when it rains.
I'm just demonstrating that the Bible can be read to indicate agreement with science at the moment in the hisory of what science could be telling us.

The story says that God created light on Day 1. It doesn’t say anything about creating the sun, the moon, or the stars at that time. Again, you are assuming that’s what was meant. I see no reason to make that assumption. It’s far more natural to assume that God created the sun, the moon, and the stars when the story says God made them-- on Day 4, not Day 1.

As I said, Gen 1:1 indicates that God was creating the heavens on day one, and so the sun, moon etc were also out there in an early stage of creation, just as the earth was in that early stage of creation.

You seem to think that this story is compatible with modern concepts of cosmology-- and again I see no reason to make that assumption. There is nothing else the story of the creation got right. Why would anyone believe that its cosmology is right?

I am not making an assumption about the Genesis story being compatible with modern concepts of cosmology and I have sort of demonsrated that. But you have said that you are assuming that the story is wrong and that it has to agree with what some other cultures said about cosmology.
It's cosmology can be read to agree with science and to even be illuminated by science. Why would you then assume that the rest of the creation story got it wrong?

 

[shunyadragon]

There must be something in the story that says that God created everything from nothing. As far as I know, the Jews, who use the translation that you like and want to use, believe that God created everything from nothing.
There is nothing in the story that says that the substance of the earth and/or waters were already in existence.
The fact is that both the translations say that God created the heavens and earth, not that God made the heavens and earth from pre existing material.



You tell us here that your interpretation is based on the assumption the Bible has to mean what other cultures of the day believed. You assume the answer, that the Bible must mean what other cultures believed. That is circular reasoning, esp when the Bible does not say that.



The Biblical cosmology that we are told the ancient Jews believed is one thing but the cosmology that we can understand from what we have learned from science, can also fit with what the Bible tells us. There is nothing wrong with being informed about Biblical interpretation through science.
Day 2 says that the waters were above the sky, and in those days the clouds, and whatever other waters there were, were probably above the atmosphere to a degree. (esp going by Job 38:9 which gives a picture of clouds extending quite a distance from the earth, and why not when there would have been no atmosphere to stop that from happening).
Sites like these show that science (even though it is still theorising) might be on the right track when it speaks about clouds around the early earth which allow light in but not necessarily allowing the sun and moon etc to be seen clearly.

Clouds May Hold Key to Why Early Earth Didn’t Freeze Over

Solution to 'young' sun paradox proposed through thinner clouds on early Earth.

www.space.com

Haze clears on ancient Earth's early atmosphere

Our planet flipped back and forth between a thick haze and clear skies 2.5 billion years ago

www.newscientist.com

Loading…

www.researchgate.net

Earth, climate and clouds - University of Victoria

Climatologists have a Precambrian problem: early in Earth's history the sun was dimmer, but the Earth wasn't colder.

www.uvic.ca

Haze clears on ancient Earth's early atmosphere

Our planet flipped back and forth between a thick haze and clear skies 2.5 billion years ago

www.newscientist.com

Gen 1:1 tells us that God was creating the heavens and the earth. This means that God was creating the early stars, sun, moon etc.
Darkness was on the ocean on the earth and thick clouds covered the earth and God began to allow light through the clouds. Then on day 4 the sun and moon etc could be seen more clearly and phenomenologically (which is the language used in the Bible a lot) the sun, moon etc then looked to be in the atmosphere (just as phenomenologically the sun looked to be going around the earth and was spoken of that way).
The phenomenon of the sun, moon and stars looking to be in the atmosphere and below the transparent clouds was not the case all the time however and these days the clouds cover the sun, moon etc when it rains.
I'm just demonstrating that the Bible can be read to indicate agreement with science at the moment in the hisory of what science could be telling us.



As I said, Gen 1:1 indicates that God was creating the heavens on day one, and so the sun, moon etc were also out there in an early stage of creation, just as the earth was in that early stage of creation.



I am not making an assumption about the Genesis story being compatible with modern concepts of cosmology and I have sort of demonsrated that. But you have said that you are assuming that the story is wrong and that it has to agree with what some other cultures said about cosmology.
It's cosmology can be read to agree with science and to even be illuminated by science. Why would you then assume that the rest of the creation story got it wrong?

The cosmology of the Bible describes the earth as the fixed center of the geocentric universe. This cannot be made to fit the scientific knowledge of cosmology, This belief in the Pentateuch inherited from the Canaanites, Babylonians, and Sumerians was accepted by virtually everyone including Islam until the 16th century. Though Islamic scholars began to question the geocentric belief in the 10th century, Many other conflicting problems abound based on the fact that the authors of the Pentateuch, NT and the Church Fathers believed in a literal Pentateuch.

 

[Subduction Zone]

 

[shunyadragon]

View attachment 93457

Plenty of dust left over to make more humans,

 

[Brian2]

The cosmology of the Bible describes the earth as the fixed center of the geocentric universe. This cannot be made to fit the scientific knowledge of cosmology, This belief in the Pentateuch inherited from the Canaanites, Babylonians, and Sumerians was accepted by virtually everyone including Islam until the 16th century. Though Islamic scholars began to question the geocentric belief in the 10th century, Many other conflicting problems abound based on the fact that the authors of the Pentateuch, NT and the Church Fathers believed in a literal Pentateuch.

There is plenty of phenomenological language in the Bible which is similar to the language we still use today, example, we say that the sun rises.
When science started to discover more about cosmology then it also informed us about the meaning of the Bible,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, unless of course you are a literalist who wants to claim a literal Bible and so a Bible which is in error, instead of a Bible which used phenomenological and metaphorical language.
So we get Young Earth Creationists (who disagree with science in favor of a literal Bible) and people who say that the Bible is mistaken and science is true (because they also insist on a literalist understanding of the Bible).

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is plenty of phenomenological language in the Bible which is similar to the language we still use today, example, we say that the sun rises.
When science started to discover more about cosmology then it also informed us about the meaning of the Bible,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, unless of course you are a literalist who wants to claim a literal Bible and so a Bible which is in error, instead of a Bible which used phenomenological and metaphorical language.
So we get Young Earth Creationists (who disagree with science in favor of a literal Bible) and people who say that the Bible is mistaken and science is true (because they also insist on a literalist understanding of the Bible).

Even if one drops the YEC errors we still know that there never was a worldwide flood and by the time that a flood is reasonable it cannot accomplish what is claimed by the Bible. We also know that there never were only two people. And the Bible fails historically in places also. One of my favorite examples is that of the two different years of birth of Jesus in the two different creation stories. Was it 4 BCE or 6 CE?

 

[Bear Wild]

Then it would be a shell, not a dome.

It's actually the skull of Ymer but you must have known that.

 

[Bear Wild]

There is plenty of phenomenological language in the Bible which is similar to the language we still use today, example, we say that the sun rises.
When science started to discover more about cosmology then it also informed us about the meaning of the Bible,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, unless of course you are a literalist who wants to claim a literal Bible and so a Bible which is in error, instead of a Bible which used phenomenological and metaphorical language.
So we get Young Earth Creationists (who disagree with science in favor of a literal Bible) and people who say that the Bible is mistaken and science is true (because they also insist on a literalist understanding of the Bible).

Yes, but try to explain that to most Christians. The dismemberment of Ymir is a mythological truth not a scientific fact of what actually happened. It places his skull in the sky with the upper world of traditional cosmology and the body with the lower world. This is the same as the creation of Ymir from fire and ice. They have meaning in relationship and not in historic events and thus represent a deeper truth about the world that any literal interpretation can. Literal interpretation thus clouds truth rather than supporting it. Most pagan embrace science and evolution except when it goes beyond it limits to discredit the phenomenological world of experience which it cannot study because we lack the way to study.

 

[King Phenomenon]

All of existence was made in the blink of an eye imo. So the Bible and evolution is wrong.

 

[Brian2]

All of existence was made in the blink of an eye imo. So the Bible and evolution is wrong.

Are you saying that tomorrow and next year and what we will do etc have been in existence since God created all existence?

 

[King Phenomenon]

Are you saying that tomorrow and next year and what we will do etc have been in existence since God created all existence?

Funny bro

 

[Brian2]

Even if one drops the YEC errors we still know that there never was a worldwide flood and by the time that a flood is reasonable it cannot accomplish what is claimed by the Bible. We also know that there never were only two people. And the Bible fails historically in places also. One of my favorite examples is that of the two different years of birth of Jesus in the two different creation stories. Was it 4 BCE or 6 CE?

Talking about those things would be going too far off the topic of the OP.

 

[Brian2]

Funny bro

But interestingly that seems to be what physicists who believe in the B theory of time believe.

 

[King Phenomenon]

But interestingly that seems to be what physicists who believe in the B theory of time believe.

Hooray for them

 

[Audie]

There is plenty of phenomenological language in the Bible which is similar to the language we still use today, example, we say that the sun rises.
When science started to discover more about cosmology then it also informed us about the meaning of the Bible,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, unless of course you are a literalist who wants to claim a literal Bible and so a Bible which is in error, instead of a Bible which used phenomenological and metaphorical language.
So we get Young Earth Creationists (who disagree with science in favor of a literal Bible) and people who say that the Bible is mistaken and science is true (because they also insist on a literalist understanding of the Bible).

Of course. Just keep changing the
meaning and pretty soon "noahs ark"
is really about the voyages of Captain Cook.

 

[Audie]

Yes, but try to explain that to most Christians. The dismemberment of Ymir is a mythological truth not a scientific fact of what actually happened. It places his skull in the sky with the upper world of traditional cosmology and the body with the lower world. This is the same as the creation of Ymir from fire and ice. They have meaning in relationship and not in historic events and thus represent a deeper truth about the world that any literal interpretation can. Literal interpretation thus clouds truth rather than supporting it. Most pagan embrace science and evolution except when it goes beyond it limits to discredit the phenomenological world of experience which it cannot study because we lack the way to study.

Everyone accepts science except when it
disproves their precious beliefs.