Picture of Mars vs. the earth. So how did Moses know?

[YoursTrue]

"So?" So what you said about visiting Mars was (obviously) wrong.

But I am now at a loss as to what point you are trying to make. It is not surprising that the Genesis writer postulated first an earth without life, with life being created later. Ancient people obviously knew well that plants and animals need land to grow on, and light and water to survive, so naturally in their creation account, land, light and water would have come before plants and animals. They would have looked pretty stupid if they had said the animal and plants came first, and only then the ground to stand on, and light and water.

True that I was wrong about men taking pictures of Mars while on Mars. You figure though that the writer of Genesis knew the sequence after it was barren and devoid of vegetation and animal life, he knew it was barren, uninhabited and void?

 

[Suave]

So you think that whoever wrote Genesis intuitively figured out that the earth was initially devoid of life in the form of vegetation and animals, is that how you see it?

Plants need soil, but soil does not need plants. Ergo, soil must come before plants. I suppose even a caveman would figure soil comes before plants.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't see the relevance of Mars. Even if you might use similar words to describe the surface of Mars today doesn't mean it is the same as or was any kind of reference for the description of early Earth in the Bible.

I'm not sure we know who actually authored the original text but more significantly, it has widely varying translations (the link here is to KJV for example, and worded quite differently to the ASV you quote).This makes it very difficult to know what the original author was actually trying to get across and analysing the individual English words used in the various translations less than meaningless.

The other issue is that you are assuming the author knew what they were writing was true, rather than just guessing, stating an unsupported belief or simply repeating the words of others.

In general, any of the religious writings reporting things they authors couldn't have experienced or witnessed first hand which are then presented in very poetic prose can't really be read in to any more than on their raw face value. You either believe it is essentially the word of God or you don't. Anything else is empty speculation.

Got any idea of what the earth looked like before it sprouted life? The surface of the moon and Mars look eerily somewhat alike. Zilch. Rocks. Barren.

 

[YoursTrue]

Plants need soil, but soil does not need plants. Ergo, soil must come before plants. I suppose even a caveman would figure soil comes before plants.

animals, too? You think cavemen figured animals came after the soil and plants??

 

[Suave]

animals, too? You think cavemen figured animals came after the soil and plants??

Herbivores need plants, but plants don't need herbivores. Ergo, plants could not have existed after non-carnivores; therefore, they must have existed before non-carnivore animals. Even primitive cavemen likely figured that out.

 

[HonestJoe]

The relevance of what the surface of Mars looks like is linking to the way the Bible described the way the earth looked like before God began preparing the earth for habitation.

Well as I said, that is very much a question of interpretation but even if there was a similarity, that would be nothing other than coincidental.

Got any idea of what the earth looked like before it sprouted life? The surface of the moon and Mars look eerily somewhat alike. Zilch. Rocks. Barren.

There are billions of years of Earth history prior to the development of life, during which it would have changed massively. There are various ways in which we can know or hypothesise how the Earth would have been over that long period, though obviously lots of educated guesswork and gaps in that information.

The Moon and Mars are actually quite different in a number of aspects, even though some images may appear similar (some parts of Earth today can look a lot like the surface of the Moon or Mars after all). Earth, Mars and the Moon are all very different though, so any general present-day comparisons are technically meaningless. It's a bit like saying three people are the same because they all have hair.

 

[YoursTrue]

Well as I said, that is very much a question of interpretation but even if there was a similarity, that would be nothing other than coincidental.

There are billions of years of Earth history prior to the development of life, during which it would have changed massively. There are various ways in which we can know or hypothesise how the Earth would have been over that long period, though obviously lots of educated guesswork and gaps in that information.

The Moon and Mars are actually quite different in a number of aspects, even though some images may appear similar (some parts of Earth today can look a lot like the surface of the Moon or Mars after all). Earth, Mars and the Moon are all very different though, so any general present-day comparisons are technically meaningless. It's a bit like saying three people are the same because they all have hair.

Ok whatever. I just thought it fascinating that the photo of Mars was so barren looking.

 

[YoursTrue]

Herbivores need plants, but plants don't need herbivores. Ergo, plants could not have existed after non-carnivores; therefore, they must have existed before non-carnivore animals. Even primitive cavemen likely figured that out.

You think they figured that out? Ok...

 

[YoursTrue]

Well as I said, that is very much a question of interpretation but even if there was a similarity, that would be nothing other than coincidental.

There are billions of years of Earth history prior to the development of life, during which it would have changed massively. There are various ways in which we can know or hypothesise how the Earth would have been over that long period, though obviously lots of educated guesswork and gaps in that information.

The Moon and Mars are actually quite different in a number of aspects, even though some images may appear similar (some parts of Earth today can look a lot like the surface of the Moon or Mars after all). Earth, Mars and the Moon are all very different though, so any general present-day comparisons are technically meaningless. It's a bit like saying three people are the same because they all have hair.

The surface of the earth is rather different with its greenery, waterfalls, rivers, not to leave out animals and rose bushes from that of Mars and the moon.

 

[Brian2]

I'm curious to know if plants were created on Day Three of the Genesis Creation account, and the sun was made on Day Four of the Genesis Creation account, then what heated the Earth for plants to survive between Genesis Creation Day Three and Genesis Creation Day Four?

IMO the whole universe was created on day 1 when it says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
Then it goes on to explain that it was dark on the earth surface and the earth had an ocean. Job 38:9 explains why it was dark on the earth, it was because the earth was surrounded by thick clouds.
As the clouds started to thin out the light got through to the earth.
Day 4 was probably when the sun, moon and stars could be seen in the sky at last, when the cloud had gone.

 

[Brian2]

I doubt Moses was an actual historic figure, if the God of Moses had actually drowned to death the Egyptian army and cursed all of the Egyptian firstborn sons out of existence, then I suppose this should have been noticed by Egypt's adversaries who would have likely then conquered Egypt. Please allow me to posit the writer of Genesis as having intuitively known the Earth's soil must have existed before the vegetation that sprouted from the Earth's soil.

The dating of the Exodus is a real mess archaeologically and most archaeologists want to date it to 1250 approx when there was no Jericho to conquer and the archaeology of Canaan does not fit the conquest story in the Bible. Yes I agree,,,,,,,,,,,,insane.
The Biblical date for the Exodus is about 1450 BC and Jericho was there and the archaeology of Canaan for a 1450 Exodus fits the conquest story in the Bible.
That date makes more sense to me.
However, in stead of making more sense it seems it is easier to say the Bible is wrong and that there was no conquest.
Depending on the dating you choose, the Egyptians can be seen to have been conquered shortly after the Exodus and/or be weak and unable to maintain their kingdom. But as I say, the archaeology is a mess and different theories abound.

 

[Brian2]

First it must be noted that evidence of the "Exodus" or Moses is non-existant. As far as barren coming before vegetation and animal life ... there is a normal human bias to view simple being before complex.

If evidence of the Exodus includes chariots from the period and skeletons in the Red Sea, it seems they exist.
20,000 chariots under the sea — Part 2
If evidence of the Exodus includes the conquest archaeology of Canaan being correct at the right time period (about 1400 BC) then that is there.
If the evidence of the Exodus includes finding evidence of Israel in Egypt, that is there.
So "non-existant" is not really the right word.

 

[Native]

ok, Native. When Moses wrote what he did about the earth (this planet - ) "starting out" (my expression, obviously words cannot describe well) BEFORE vegetation -- oceans -- animals -- since he ouldn't see certainly the surface of Mars, how dio you think he knew that the earth started out without -- vegetation, animals, fishes?

The biblical Creation Myth isn´t the only one on the Earth and they all contains the similar basic telling of the creation beginning with some basic unordered pre-conditions of creation which leads to the evolution of everything.
Read these links.
Creation Story
Cultural List of Creation Myths
OBS: The old cultural stories of creation don´t deal with the creation of the entire Universe, but "only" with the creation of our Milky Way and the Solar System.

 

[Native]

I doubt Moses was an actual historic figure,

I agree in that. Moses was mot likely a personified astronomical figure who represented a border line between the southern and northern Earth hemispheres and in this way "geographically separated the waters" on the Earth.
That is: This initial astronomical ancient telling have later on lost its astro-mythical meaning and been personified to fit into the Jewish biased perception of "God and His Jewish People".

 

[viole]

So how did Moses know the earth's surface was just plain not filled with life as he saw it?

Well, since he needed to make up a creation act, what other choices did he have?

Ciao

- viole

 

[exchemist]

True that I was wrong about men taking pictures of Mars while on Mars. You figure though that the writer of Genesis knew the sequence after it was barren and devoid of vegetation and animal life, he knew it was barren, uninhabited and void?

No, I'm saying that any credible creation narrative would have said the earth, water and light would be created before plants and animals, because to do it the other way round would have looked stupid to the people of the time.

 

[exchemist]

If evidence of the Exodus includes chariots from the period and skeletons in the Red Sea, it seems they exist.
20,000 chariots under the sea — Part 2
If evidence of the Exodus includes the conquest archaeology of Canaan being correct at the right time period (about 1400 BC) then that is there.
If the evidence of the Exodus includes finding evidence of Israel in Egypt, that is there.
So "non-existant" is not really the right word.

I can't access your link. Where does it come from?

I'm sceptical, as I seem to recall some sensational claims a few years ago of finding chariot wheels in the Red Sea, which turned out to be hogwash. But I'll read the source if you can tell me where to find it.

P.S. Here is the hogwash I had in mind. It's from 2014: FACT CHECK: Were Chariot Wheels Found at the Bottom of the Red Sea?. Have you too been taken in by this, or are you referring to something else?

 

[Wandering Monk]

I can't access your link. Where does it come from?

I'm sceptical, as I seem to recall some sensational claims a few years ago of finding chariot wheels in the Red Sea, which turned out to be hogwash. But I'll read the source if you can tell me where to find it.

P.S. Here is the hogwash I had in mind. It's from 2014: FACT CHECK: Were Chariot Wheels Found at the Bottom of the Red Sea?. Have you too been taken in by this, or are you referring to something else?

I was able to use her link. The story relies on Ron Wyatt's 'discovery.' He was a lunatic. He claims to have found every significant Biblical artifact including the Ark of the Covenant under the Hill of the Skull where Jesus was crucified. He claims that Jesus' blood was on it and claims to have had it analyzed.

Some people are so credulous of this garbage because it confirms what they want to believe.

Ron Wyatt: Collosal Fraud | ScienceBlogs

 

[exchemist]

I was able to use her link. The story relies on Ron Wyatt's 'discovery.' He was a lunatic. He claims to have found every significant Biblical artifact including the Ark of the Covenant under the Hill of the Skull where Jesus was crucified. He claims that Jesus' blood was on it and claims to have had it analyzed.

Some people are so credulous of this garbage because it confirms what they want to believe.

Ron Wyatt: Collosal Fraud | ScienceBlogs

Oh I remember him. He was the idiot who thought a geological formation on Mt. Ararat was Noah's Ark.

Here's another piece pointing out the Red Sea chariot wheels story is bunk: Fake News In Biblical Archaeology

Thank God this blighter is dead!

 

[blü 2]

OK, they say water had been on Mars. But the photo of Mars I saw in a journal really showed that the words used to describe the scene might be barren, waste or void. Rocks and lots of them. So the question is -- how do you think Moses knew the earth, at the beginning, was "waste and void;"? (American Standard Version, Genesis 1:2) You think he figured it out that it might have looked that way, although he saw greenery, and animals? I'm also figuring that he couldn't see much on Mars at that point. So how did Moses know the earth's surface was just plain not filled with life as he saw it? Just general reasoning? Of course, the Bible does say that star differs from star...and we know that planets themselves differ from each other.. but so far no one has discovered a planet like the earth as it is now, not conjecture, with trees and animals.

The cosmology of Moses would be the cosmology of Babylon, found throughout the bible ─ a flat earth, immovably fixed at the center of creation, around which the heavenly bodies circle. The sky is a hard dome on which you can walk, and to which the stars are affixed such that if they come loose, they'll fall to earth.

That is, there's no concept of heliocentry, orbits, planets, stars, galaxies, gravity, deep space, light years, nothing at all.

So as far as Moses was concerned, Mars was one of the 'lights' that wasn't fixed in its position relative to the main body of lights which were indeed affixed to the hard sky.

If you're interested, I posted a list of quotes from the bible about its cosmology >here<.