Not even Christians believe the *edit* of creation

[Bear Wild]

Everyone accepts science except when it
disproves their precious beliefs.

Well thank goodness science has not disproven any of my pagan beliefs and experiences and I agree with everything that science has evidence for. There are things that science cannot yet study so for now I am quite comfortable with science and my pagan religion. The two complement each other to form a greater relationship with the world.

 

[Audie]

Well thank goodness science has not disproven any of my pagan beliefs and experiences and I agree with everything that science has evidence for. There are things that science cannot yet study so for now I am quite comfortable with science and my pagan religion. The two complement each other to form a greater relationship with the world.

Possibly. Depends on what you know/ understand.

But that's generally so.

But not for yecs.

 

[Bear Wild]

One correction to the above should read Well thank the Goddess science has not disproven any of my pagan practice

 

[Jimmy]

It’s not a **** story. The true story can’t be revealed for the safety of humanity. If people knew who “Jesus” was, they would harm him. That’s why God gave us the story he did.. and that’s all it is. A story that’s meant to enlighten people to the real truth imo.

 

[Brian2]

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

It's not about changing the meaning, it is about using legitimate alternative meanings.
When people did not know the science meaning A was chosen.
When people learned the science they could see that meaning B was correct.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's not about changing the meaning, it is about using legitimate alternative meanings.
When people did not know the science meaning A was chosen.
When people learned the science they could see that meaning B was correct.

No one that I have ever seen has ever presented a "legitimate alternative meaning" except for it being a morality tale. Any attempt to make the story at all literal results in it failing.

 

[blü 2]

Jesus Christ was not an evolutionist, but on the contrary: he believed that the Creator made a unique couple at the beginning of humanity as the Bible explains.

But of course that was simply the folk-understanding of his time and place.

In fact the universe is perhaps 14 bn years old and the solar system including the earth is about 4.5 bn years old.

Life appears on earth (we can say with reasonable confidence) by 3.5 bn years ago, and apparently earlier. Complex critters appear by the end of the Cambrian some 540 mya. Placental mammals appear some 160-110 mya, apes say 29 mya.

Genus Homo develops between 4.5 and 2.4 mya when Homo sapiens arrives (and whether red ochre burial customs suggest religious practices begins to be a question).

Civilization appears say 12,000 years ago together with strong suggestions of magical and religious beliefs. We can confidently point to the worship of gods in Mesopotamia and Egypt long before 3000 BCE.

Worship of Yahweh is first evidenced around 1500 BCE. [He] becomes one of various Canaanite henotheistic gods (as the bible notes), but becomes the only god around the time of Isaiah.

In the first century CE Christians appear, and renounce the Covenant, and create a new tripartite deity while claiming continuity ... and so on.

We don't want to confuse the history of the universe and of humans as disclosed by reasoned enquiry with folk histories, interesting though many of them are, do we.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Here's the first sentence of the Bible:

(The New Revised Standard Version, Updated Edition was published in 2019. The organization that holds the copyright on that version is the National Council of Churches of the United States of America. So it represents the orthodox Christian interpretation in the United States.)
The above passage clearly states that God fashioned the universe from the pre-existing substances of the earth and the waters. There is no major Christian sect today that believes that. Here's what the Catholic Catechism says:

So the Catholic Church believes the exact opposite of what the very first sentence of the Bible actually says. The same is true of the other major Christian sects.

Here's what the Bible says happened on Day 2:

Note that the above passage says that there are waters above the dome. Why would there be waters above the Earth's sky? Answer: Because the author of this *Staff Edit* believed that the universe is a giant ocean of water. And why would anyone believe such a thing? The fact is that there were many people throughout the ancient world who ardently believed exactly that-- and we have clear evidence from the Bible itself that the Israelites were in direct contact with them. For example the Bible says that the Israelites were held captive in Egypt for 430 years. That would have been plenty of time for them to have learned of the religious beliefs and practices of ancient Egypt. One of the several stories of the creation that was popular in ancient Egypt originated in the city of On. That narrative said that the universe began as an ocean of water, that a mound of fertile earth appeared and that the god Atum created himself and then engendered the gods Shu and Tefnut. And between the three of them they created everything else in the universe.
And there was the Babylonian captivity. In 597 BCE the Neo-Babylonian empire conquered the kingdom of Judah and hauled off its elites to the city of Babylon to serve the empire. We know that at least some parts of the Bible were written in Babylon since Psalm 137 specifically states that it was written in the city of Babylon on the banks of the Euphrates river. While there the Israelites would surely have heard the Enuma Elish-- the Babylonian myth of creation. That story said that the universe began as an ocean of water and that the first act of the creation was the separation of the good water (i.e. fresh) from the bad water (i.e. salty).
As far as I am aware there are no modern Christians who actually believe that the universe is an ocean of water. And if there are I would have to ask: How exactly did the Apollo astronauts get to and from the Moon? Did they swim?

Note also that the Day 2 passage cited above says that the sky (i.e. the atmosphere) is dome shaped. Why would God have created a dome shaped atmosphere over a spherical Earth? Answer: He wouldn't have. He would only have created a dome-shaped atmosphere over a flat, disk-shaped Earth. And that's because the author of the *edit* believed that the Earth is a flat disk.
I know there are a few people who still believe that the Earth is flat, and yes I'm familiar with the lunacy advocated by The Flat Earth Society: The Flat Earth Society. But any flat earth model is easily disproved. In the "naive" flat Earth model the sun revolves around the Earth in a plane that is perpendicular to the plane of the Earth. But such a model makes no accounting of time zones, since observers anywhere on the Earth would see the sun rise and set at exactly the same time. As for the Flat Earth Society's model, the sun revolves in an orbit above and parallel to the plane of the Earth. In that model the sun would neither rise nor set.

There is not one substantive fact about the creation-- and evolution-- of the universe that the *edit* the Bible got right. Some Christians may disagree violently with that statement, but I don't think that even the most ardent defenders of the *edit* would agree with what the first sentence of the story actually says. So let's first agree as to the meaning of the very first sentence of the Bible and then we can talk about other aspects of the 13.7 billion year evolution of the universe. If we can't even agree on that then there's no point in trying to argue about the rest of the *edit*.

It's one if the solid proofs that Christians are not communicating with any actual God, except for the one in each individual mind that they relate to in the world, created by the periaqueductal gray. An amazing feat of evolution.

 

[marriedmanoffaith]

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.

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.

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 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.

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?

The concept of Theistic Evolution has been accepted by most major Church institutions since at least the 1960s, except for a small group of very loud and aggressively stupid christians in the US. Everyone else agrees that you can't read the bible like you'd read a scientific text because the scientific method didn't exist back then. I don't even understand how this is still a debate -- we have much bigger and more pressing issues to worry about.

 

[Audie]

It's not about changing the meaning, it is about using legitimate alternative meanings.
When people did not know the science meaning A was chosen.
When people learned the science they could see that meaning B was correct.

That approach is choosing to believe
Christianities foundational myths are True ,unlike
those of any otherireligion.
No matter how false they plainly are.
Which, like it or not, is a profoundly intellectually
dishonest approach. Unless you know how it isnt?

Keep changing the story to fit emerging facts
in court sometime. They call it perjury
.

If " build an ark" doesn't involve an ark. " all the
world" isn't anywhere, there was no water in rain or flood,
then thr meaning of words and story is gone from
what you concede was the original meaning.

It goes to the heart of truth and belief, not like
simple metaphors like " jesus was a lamb".

None of the " days" of creation really happened.
No fruit chompin' sin that corrupted all the universe.
No parting the waves


As believed by Jesus who is supposed to have
been god.

There for sure is an alternate meaning to
apocryphal stories presented as truth.

In court they call it perjury.

 

[blü 2]

It’s not a **** story. The true story can’t be revealed for the safety of humanity. If people knew who “Jesus” was, they would harm him. That’s why God gave us the story he did.. and that’s all it is. A story that’s meant to enlighten people to the real truth imo.

Ahm, what "real truth" is that, exactly?

 

[Jimmy]

Ahm, what "real truth" is that, exactly?

You know my belief.

 

[blü 2]

You know my belief.

I'm not aware of it in any articulated form so I'd be obliged if you'd spell it out for me.

 

[Jimmy]

I'm not aware of it in any articulated form so I'd be obliged if you'd spell it out for me.

You have a bad memory unfortunately

 

[Audie]

I'm not aware of it in any articulated form so I'd be obliged if you'd spell it out for me.

Spare us.

 

[Balthazzar]

Here's the first sentence of the Bible:

(The New Revised Standard Version, Updated Edition was published in 2019. The organization that holds the copyright on that version is the National Council of Churches of the United States of America. So it represents the orthodox Christian interpretation in the United States.)
The above passage clearly states that God fashioned the universe from the pre-existing substances of the earth and the waters. There is no major Christian sect today that believes that. Here's what the Catholic Catechism says:

So the Catholic Church believes the exact opposite of what the very first sentence of the Bible actually says. The same is true of the other major Christian sects.

Here's what the Bible says happened on Day 2:

Note that the above passage says that there are waters above the dome. Why would there be waters above the Earth's sky? Answer: Because the author of this *Staff Edit* believed that the universe is a giant ocean of water. And why would anyone believe such a thing? The fact is that there were many people throughout the ancient world who ardently believed exactly that-- and we have clear evidence from the Bible itself that the Israelites were in direct contact with them. For example the Bible says that the Israelites were held captive in Egypt for 430 years. That would have been plenty of time for them to have learned of the religious beliefs and practices of ancient Egypt. One of the several stories of the creation that was popular in ancient Egypt originated in the city of On. That narrative said that the universe began as an ocean of water, that a mound of fertile earth appeared and that the god Atum created himself and then engendered the gods Shu and Tefnut. And between the three of them they created everything else in the universe.
And there was the Babylonian captivity. In 597 BCE the Neo-Babylonian empire conquered the kingdom of Judah and hauled off its elites to the city of Babylon to serve the empire. We know that at least some parts of the Bible were written in Babylon since Psalm 137 specifically states that it was written in the city of Babylon on the banks of the Euphrates river. While there the Israelites would surely have heard the Enuma Elish-- the Babylonian myth of creation. That story said that the universe began as an ocean of water and that the first act of the creation was the separation of the good water (i.e. fresh) from the bad water (i.e. salty).
As far as I am aware there are no modern Christians who actually believe that the universe is an ocean of water. And if there are I would have to ask: How exactly did the Apollo astronauts get to and from the Moon? Did they swim?

Note also that the Day 2 passage cited above says that the sky (i.e. the atmosphere) is dome shaped. Why would God have created a dome shaped atmosphere over a spherical Earth? Answer: He wouldn't have. He would only have created a dome-shaped atmosphere over a flat, disk-shaped Earth. And that's because the author of the *edit* believed that the Earth is a flat disk.
I know there are a few people who still believe that the Earth is flat, and yes I'm familiar with the lunacy advocated by The Flat Earth Society: The Flat Earth Society. But any flat earth model is easily disproved. In the "naive" flat Earth model the sun revolves around the Earth in a plane that is perpendicular to the plane of the Earth. But such a model makes no accounting of time zones, since observers anywhere on the Earth would see the sun rise and set at exactly the same time. As for the Flat Earth Society's model, the sun revolves in an orbit above and parallel to the plane of the Earth. In that model the sun would neither rise nor set.

There is not one substantive fact about the creation-- and evolution-- of the universe that the *edit* the Bible got right. Some Christians may disagree violently with that statement, but I don't think that even the most ardent defenders of the *edit* would agree with what the first sentence of the story actually says. So let's first agree as to the meaning of the very first sentence of the Bible and then we can talk about other aspects of the 13.7 billion year evolution of the universe. If we can't even agree on that then there's no point in trying to argue about the rest of the *edit*.

Question: Do we know the earth was spherical at onset or is this based on current form? The reason I ask is we're in rotation, things are always moving, and we're spinning on an axis. Beyond this, asteroids and other debris likely added to the spherical formation. Also, I put a few flat skin looking things (seeds) in some damp paper towel, along with others of the same type that were plump. The plump ones are still the same, but the flat ones are now the same as the plump ones, size, shape, and firmness. This growth may be indicative of what could have been possible in the beginning with the earth. This is speculation, of course but reason enough for me to keep this line of reasoning open for the possibility. There are too many snares existing already to desire limiting this one.

 

[Balthazzar]

Hmmmm... If I were to say "When I began to wash my car it was covered in tree pollen," I don't think anyone would interpret that to mean that I first washed my car and then it was covered in tree pollen. Most people would interpret it to mean that my car was covered in tree pollen when I began the act of washing the car. It's the same here. When God began the act of the creation (by saying "Let there be light"), the earth was chaos and there was darkness over the deep. What do you suppose the "deep" is? It's the waters that fill the universe.

You:

Yes, the Earth and the waters existed before God began the act of creation by saying "Let there be light." That's what the author of this story believed, and that's what most people of that time believed. You're injecting your 21st century notions about the structure of the universe into a story that was written probably about 2500 years ago. People of that time didn't have telescopes. They believed that the Earth is a flat disk, that it is fixed and immovable at the center of the universe, and that the universe itself is filled with water. They couldn't even have imagined the concept of an interstellar vacuum.

You:

But the Heavens weren't created until Day 2. You've jumbled up the sequence of events.

It might help if you were to review this response I gave earlier to a contributor whose favorite translation is the Douay-Rhiems Bible:

DSM response to Kathryn

Stones after exploding are typically jagged edged, but when in a river long enough they become smooth. The universe may not be made of h20 but it's still a very fluid ether, which would have a similar effect on jagged surfaces coupled with the motions. I'm sure the big bang was very chaotic and when the dust settled enough to see more clearly, I'm thinking the sequenced events became more defined. If the earth wasn't spherical, the spinning rock on its axis would have created a dome of energy around it, which may or may not have become the atmosphere. I'm thinking the atmosphere was formed from the byproduct of living organisms, and with the help of the electro-magnetic field between the iron ores of the earth and the sun. Density very likely keeps things within their respective boundaries, which makes me question our ozone layer and the density of that part transgressing through it and its relationship to our sun's heliosphere.

 

[Audie]

I'm not aware of it in any articulated form so I'd be obliged if you'd spell it out for me.

Spare us

 

[blü 2]

You have a bad memory unfortunately

Better than yours, apparently, though I acknowledge that's a low bar.

 

[Pogo]

Stones after exploding are typically jagged edged, but when in a river long enough they become smooth. The universe may not be made of h20 but it's still a very fluid ether, which would have a similar effect on jagged surfaces coupled with the motions. I'm sure the big bang was very chaotic and when the dust settled enough to see more clearly, I'm thinking the sequenced events became more defined. If the earth wasn't spherical, the spinning rock on its axis would have created a dome of energy around it, which may or may not have become the atmosphere. I'm thinking the atmosphere was formed from the byproduct of living organisms, and with the help of the electro-magnetic field between the iron ores of the earth and the sun. Density very likely keeps things within their respective boundaries, which makes me question our ozone layer and the density of that part transgressing through it and its relationship to our sun's heliosphere.

Uh, no, the non-explosion of a solid that was the big bang did not directly create the materials that aggregated to become the earth. There is billions of years of stellar and galaxy formulation and demise in between to even create the elements that make up the earth. Go to a library and research the thing called the "Big Bang" and then research planet formation, they are sequential, but distantly related.
For example, there was no H2O or water in the universe for millions if not billions of years let alone the iron and nickel that makes up the majority of the core of the earth.