The Search For Truth

[nPeace]

I only gave the example as the relationship between the singularity and the universe. Yi still beed to respond to the whole post.

Likewise.
I responded to the whole post.
In fact, if you think I need to do more, then you had better go back and respond to all the posts (in this thread only) you did not respond to.

While you're at it respond to #90

I know you can read. I hope you aren't having any problems with seeing the posts. Posts #94, and #95.

 

[nPeace]

The Bible don’t inform anything about the universe (as it had no concept of the universe as we know it now), and certainly not of the origin. The Genesis only talk of the origin of Earth, but there are no explanations as to the mechanism of the origin.

This is false, and a repeated pattern of creating a strawman, since

1. The Bible does inform the reader of the universe - the only one we know of today.
2. For the umpteenth time, the Bible is not a science text book. So, it is ridiculous to the highest level of absurdity to constantly refer to explanations of mechanisms, and suchlike, missing from the Bible.

(Genesis 1:1) . . .In the beginning God created [בָּרָא] the heavens and the earth.

(Genesis 2:1) . . .Thus the heavens and the earth and everything in them were completed. . .

(Genesis 2:4) . . .This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.

(Job 9:9) . . .He made the Ash, the Keʹsil, and the Kiʹmah constellations, And the constellations of the southern sky;

(Psalm 146:6) 6 The Maker of heaven and earth, Of the sea, and of all that is in them,. . .

(Isaiah 37:16) . . .You made the heavens and the earth.

(Isaiah 40:26) . . .“Lift up your eyes to heaven and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who brings out their army by number; He calls them all by name. Because of his vast dynamic energy and his awe-inspiring power, Not one of them is missing.

(Isaiah 42:5) . . .The Creator of the heavens and the Grand One who stretched them out, The One who spread out the earth and its produce,. . .

(Isaiah 44:24) . . .“I am Jehovah, who made everything. I stretched out the heavens by myself, And I spread out the earth.. . .

(Isaiah 45:18) . . .For this is what Jehovah says, The Creator of the heavens, the true God, The One who formed the earth, its Maker who firmly established it, Who did not create it simply for nothing, but formed it to be inhabited:. . .

(Amos 5:8) . . .The One who made the Kiʹmah constellation and the Keʹsil constellation. . .

The Bible zeroes in on the earth because here is where events are considered, as they relate to life on earth.

The biblical/Genesis origin, only say that the Earth had beginning and that God did it. That’s just superstitious beliefs, it is not explanations to the mechanism of the Earth’s origin.

Again, FALSE. See above.
I really wish you would stop making these statements so dogmatically as if they are facts, when in fact they are ridiculously false.

Genesis 1;2 also say that it had watery beginning, but not only that’s wrong, it doesn’t explain where the water come from.

It say, that divided the water above from the water below (sea), and between these two waters is a “dome” or “vault” or “expanse” or the “firmament”, that call the “SKY”, hence the “dome of the sky” (Genesis 1:6-8):

Expanse.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia states: “... this assumption is in reality based more upon the ideas prevalent in Europe during the Dark Ages than upon any actual statements in the O[ld] T[estament].” - Edited by J. Orr, 1960, Vol. I, p. 314.

In the book of Genesis, no solid substance is described as being beaten out but, rather, the creation of an open space, or division, between the waters covering the earth and other waters above the earth. It thus describes the formation of the atmospheric expanse surrounding the earth and indicates that at one time there was no clear division or open space but that the entire globe was previously enveloped in water vapor. This also accords with scientific reasoning on the early stages of the planet’s formation and the view that at one time all of earth’s water existed in the form of atmospheric vapor because of the extreme heat of the earth’s surface at that point.

And that later it say (on the 4th day) the sun, moon and stars existed in that “dome” or sky that existed between the 2 waters (Genesis 1:14-17):

No. See above.

It is ridiculous to think that there are water above the sun, moon and stars. There are no waters above the sun, moon and stars.

Then it say that birds fly in the same dome of the sky as where god set the sun, moon and stars (Genesis 1:20):

It would indeed be ridiculous to think that.
Note please. It would indeed be ridiculous to think that. Why then are you thinking it?

This is why skeptics don't make good Bible students.
First, they don't know how to read the Bible to gain any kind of understanding, and second, they don't know what they are talking about.

Genesis 1:1 reads... In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
So the heavenly bodies were created on day one, along with the earth.

Genesis 1:3 reads... And God said: “Let there be light [אוֹר|.” Then there was light [אוֹר].
This is light from a source. Could be any of the following:

• morning light
• sunlight
• starlight
• daylight

... you get the gist.

Genesis 1:14-18 reads...

14 Then God said: “Let there be luminaries [מָאוֹר] in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night, and they will serve as signs for seasons and for days and years. 15 They will serve as luminaries [מָאוֹר] in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth.” And it was so. 16 And God went on to make the two great luminaries [מָאוֹר], the greater luminary [מָאוֹר] for dominating the day and the lesser luminary [מָאוֹר] for dominating the night, and also the stars. 17 Thus God put them in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth 18 and to dominate by day and by night and to make a division between the light and the darkness. Then God saw that it was good.​

Here, we read, of the source(s) of light.
Could be

• Sun
• Moon
• Stars

These are made visible in the expanse. The verses do not say God created these at that point. The Hebrew word asah [עָשָׂה] means to establish, accomplish, appoint, make... Unlike bara' (בָּרָא), which means create... which is interesting, when you consider the entire chapter of Genesis 1, and its words usage.

So, the account in Genesis presents the picture, of the heavens and earth being created on day one - the creation (birth) of the universe.
Light from the sun, moon, stars, being present, on that same day.
Then, on day four, light sources being visible in the expanse.
I explained this before.

The sun was there, but light needed to penetrate the earth's atmosphere.

Early Faint Sun Paradox Explained?
Scientists say a thick organic haze that enshrouded early Earth several billion years ago may have been similar to the haze that covers Titan and would have protected emerging life on the planet from the damaging effects of ultraviolet radiation, while warming the planet, as well.

Lab simulations helped researchers conclude that the Earth haze likely was made up of irregular “chains” of aggregate particles with greater geometrical sizes, similar to the shape of aerosols believed to populate Titan’s thick atmosphere. The arrival of the Cassini spacecraft at Saturn in 2004 has allowed scientists to study Titan, the only moon in the solar system with both a dense atmosphere and liquid on its surface.

A thick haze of organic material let the early Earth soak up the sun's warmth without absorbing harmful ultraviolet rays, according to a new study.

There are no ways for the birds to fly in this same “dome of the sky” as the sun, moon and stars.

What "dome of the sky" are you talking about?
Sounds like a game someone is making. I don't read that in Genesis though.

Genesis Creation really don’t know anything about the Earth and about astronomy.

No such water exist above the sun, moon and stars.

Genesis often no explanations whatsoever, and whatever descriptions the Genesis do supply are usually wrong, especially those 3 passages I had quoted.

From what I read here, I would say gnostic does not have a clue about the Bible, and understanding it.
You're not alone though... if that's comforting.

 

[Astrophile]

The Bible says the universe had a beginning. (Genesis 1:1)
The Bible says the earth is suspended in empty space. (Job 26:7)
The Bible says rivers and springs are fed by water that has evaporated from the oceans and other sources and then has fallen back to earth as rain, snow, or hail. (Job 36:27, 28; Ecclesiastes 1:7; Isaiah 55:10; Amos 9:6)
...and more.

There are only two possibilities; either the universe had a beginning or it is eternal. For the Bible to get the right answer is no more impressive and no more evidence of supernatural inspiration than guessing correctly on the toss of a coin. Also the descriptions of the creation in Genesis 1 and 2 are quite different from the origin of the universe as described by modern cosmology.

The Earth is not suspended in space; it is in orbit around the Sun, which itself is in orbit around the centre of the Galaxy. The Galaxy in turn is moving towards the Andromeda galaxy (M31) and will collide with it between 4 and 9 billion years in the future. Also the Greek philosopher Anaximander (ca. 611-545) said much the same thing as Job, and at about the same time, and he didn't invoke a god as the source of his information.

This was rather clever. However, it doesn't need anything more than intelligent observation. People must have seen how rivers and lakes dried up in hot weather and how water evaporated from open vessels. They must also have seen clouds coming inland from the sea and rain, hail and snow falling from the clouds.

 

[nPeace]

You don't believe God created the universe from nothing?

That's what I said. Why do you usually ask questions that have already been answered?

 

[Astrophile]

The Bible does not say that. People do... Like you just did... and they never can show where... Like you can't.

The Appendix (pp. 363-369) of the book Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea by Christine Garwood (Pan Macmillan Ltd., 2007) quotes 40 verses from the Bible that have been used as 'proofs' that the Earth is not a globe.

 

[nPeace]

The Appendix (pp. 363-369) of the book Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea by Christine Garwood (Pan Macmillan Ltd., 2007) quotes 40 verses from the Bible that have been used as 'proofs' that the Earth is not a globe.

Yes, people have posted their ideas as scripture.
I can't count the number of times atheist have said the Bible says X, only to have to point out otherwise.

You could try to prove me wrong, by posting the best of the 40, but I am sure it would demonstrate what I said to be true..

 

[nPeace]

There are only two possibilities; either the universe had a beginning or it is eternal. For the Bible to get the right answer is no more impressive and no more evidence of supernatural inspiration than guessing correctly on the toss of a coin.

I would consider your statement to have merit, if the Bible presented it's record as guesswork or uncertainties, like most Hindu scribal work. That's not the case though.

Also the descriptions of the creation in Genesis 1 and 2 are quite different from the origin of the universe as described by modern cosmology.

Not much different. What makes the latter description correct though?

The Earth is not suspended in space; it is in orbit around the Sun, which itself is in orbit around the centre of the Galaxy. The Galaxy in turn is moving towards the Andromeda galaxy (M31) and will collide with it between 4 and 9 billion years in the future. Also the Greek philosopher Anaximander (ca. 611-545) said much the same thing as Job, and at about the same time, and he didn't invoke a god as the source of his information.

The earth is hanging on something?
No. It is hanging on nothing, as accurately described in the Bible. That's the only point made in Job.

Job is one of the earliest Bible books to be written. Its writing was completed c. 1473 B.C.E.
Where did you get that date? Oh. Don't tell me. Modern scholars.

This was rather clever. However, it doesn't need anything more than intelligent observation. People must have seen how rivers and lakes dried up in hot weather and how water evaporated from open vessels. They must also have seen clouds coming inland from the sea and rain, hail and snow falling from the clouds.

Well, it certainly is consistent with other things that weren't known until recently, so I would say it's significant coming from a people living back then. Religious people at that, and not scientists.
Besides, these are only part of the story. Lumping all the facts together - historical, scientific, prophetic... accuracy, says quite a lot about its uniqueness.

 

[gnostic]

This is false, and a repeated pattern of creating a strawman, since

1. For the umpteenth time, the Bible is not a science text book. So, it is ridiculous to the highest level of absurdity to constantly refer to explanations of mechanisms, and suchlike, missing from the Bible.

Are you daft?

I really have no problems treating the Genesis Creation & Flood as religious texts, as mythological narratives (hence stories), just as I read all other ancient myths from other ancient cultures and from other ancient civilisations.

I am not the one interpreting the Genesis or any other books of OT or NT, as if they were science or history or better…no, it is you and other creationists like you, are doing that.

I know very well that the Bible isn't a collection of science treatises or textbooks, and I have been tell you absurd creationists since I have joined my 3rd forum (here, 2006; my 1st forum back in 2003). It is you lots of creationists, who either equate the Genesis creation with modern sciences (through interpretations and using false equivalence), or to presume the Genesis creation “superior“ than modern sciences.

Sciences don’t just explain the HOW, which are the mechanisms, or the natural & physical processes. Sciences also explain the WHAT.

The WHAT includes the explanation on what the phenomena are, as well as any properties that phenomena may have.

since I have joined RF, I have been squashing such interpretations by you lot.

And you say that “For the umpteenth time, the Bible is not a science text book. So, it is ridiculous to the highest level of absurdity to constantly refer to explanations of mechanisms, and suchlike, missing from the Bible.”, but you are doing that again, below, with:

This is false, and a repeated pattern of creating a strawman, since

1. The Bible does inform the reader of the universe - the only one we know of today.

(Genesis 1:1) . . .In the beginning God created [בָּרָא] the heavens and the earth.

(Genesis 2:1) . . .Thus the heavens and the earth and everything in them were completed. . .

(Genesis 2:4) . . .This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.

(Job 9:9) . . .He made the Ash, the Keʹsil, and the Kiʹmah constellations, And the constellations of the southern sky;

(Psalm 146:6) 6 The Maker of heaven and earth, Of the sea, and of all that is in them,. . .

(Isaiah 37:16) . . .You made the heavens and the earth.

(Isaiah 40:26) . . .“Lift up your eyes to heaven and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who brings out their army by number; He calls them all by name. Because of his vast dynamic energy and his awe-inspiring power, Not one of them is missing.

(Isaiah 42:5) . . .The Creator of the heavens and the Grand One who stretched them out, The One who spread out the earth and its produce,. . .

(Isaiah 44:24) . . .“I am Jehovah, who made everything. I stretched out the heavens by myself, And I spread out the earth.. . .

(Isaiah 45:18) . . .For this is what Jehovah says, The Creator of the heavens, the true God, The One who formed the earth, its Maker who firmly established it, Who did not create it simply for nothing, but formed it to be inhabited:. . .

(Amos 5:8) . . .The One who made the Kiʹmah constellation and the Keʹsil constellation. . .

The Bible zeroes in on the earth because here is where events are considered, as they relate to life on earth.

The word “inform” relates to “information”, and information implies “knowledge”. Information and knowledge to me, in today context, are related, as information are “observations” like “data” that verify the knowledge.

None of verses you quoted from Genesis, Job, Isaiah & Amos, have any relating to information, especially nothing of worth regarding to the Universe as we know it today.

The word “heaven” or “heavens” are rather vague, but Genesis (and other OT) isn’t the only myths to use these 2 words - heaven & heavens - I find them being used in other creation myths from Egypt, from Sumer & later from Babylonia & Assyria, from Ugarit, from classical Greece & Rome, from Norse myths, and from India, China & Japan.

What they described are only is what everyone can see back then, the Solar System and very tiny portion of the Milky Way of several thousand stars. Basically they only see in the day (eg Sun & sometimes the moon) and the night sky.

what every single myths described, including the Genesis myths (plus those passages you quoted elsewhere), only describe what are seen in the sky, and nothing about the Universe as a whole.

If you recall my saying that sciences explain the WHAT & HOW, nothing in your quotes explain what the heavens are, and they are certainly not “informing” us anything about the Universe as we know it today.

you are the one using straw man, false equivalence and circular reasoning, when you associate the “heavens” with the Universe.

Even when Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Charles Messier, the Herschel family and other astronomers using small telescopes, still mainly saw tiny portion of the Milky Way, and misidentified the few observable “galaxies” as “nebulas”, even they didn’t see or understand the Universe.

We only just began to know about the other galaxies outside of the Milky Way, in 1919, when Edwin Hubble observed through the Hooker Telescope, the largest optical telescope at that time. Only then, that astronomy began the new phase of discovery, building observatories with even larger optical telescopes, as well as using technology for radio astronomy, that we realised just how small our Solar System & the Milky Way are.

So for you to say that the Genesis “heavens” is informing us “of the universe - the only one we know of today” - that’s a false claim.

You quote mining the OT, are just another example of you thinking the authors of the OT knowing more than they are really do.

do you lie this frequently?

 

[shunyadragon]

Several verses say that.
it shall not be shaken / made to totter.
mot מוֹט - to totter, shake, slip
It's not referring to movement of earth, but rather refers to it being fixed forever - its durability.
This can be seen when you read the context.

(1 Chronicles 16:30) . . .The earth is firmly established. . .

(Psalm 93:1) . . .The earth is firmly established;. . .
(Psalm 93:2) . . .Your throne was firmly established long ago; From eternity you have existed.

The context is very clear, whether it totters or not. It directly refers to the fixed position of the earth several times.

You're also neglecting the fact that the Cosmology of culture times the OT and NT were compiled was geocentric like all ancient cultures, with the obvious observations that all the heavenly bodies rotated around the earth.

Where can you cite in the Bible that the Earth and the planets rotate around the sun? There are absolutely NO references in the Bible that describe the sun as the center of our (solar system) universe, which would be wrong by the present cosmology. The concepts of astronomy of the time had no comprehension of our solar system and what is the universe.

Your playing Duck, Bob, and Wessal

 

[shunyadragon]

That's what I said. Why do you usually ask questions that have already been answered?

What did God Create the universe from?

 

[gnostic]

First, they don't know how to read the Bible to gain any kind of understanding, and second, they don't know what they are talking about.

Genesis 1:1 reads... In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
So the heavenly bodies were created on day one, along with the earth.

Genesis 1:3 reads... And God said: “Let there be light [אוֹר|.” Then there was light [אוֹר].
This is light from a source. Could be any of the following:

• morning light
• sunlight
• starlight
• daylight

... you get the gist.

no, there are no mentions of sun, moon or stars in verse 1:1, or in verse 1:3-5.

The light had no sources except that magically pop into existence, when god said there “Let there be light”.

Light don’t simply exist just because some uttered words, as if incantation or spell from witches. In more older Egyptian myths, Ptah, Thoth and Isis were gods and powerful magicians, also used spells, just as Genesis 1:3.

So, the account in Genesis presents the picture, of the heavens and earth being created on day one - the creation (birth) of the universe.
Light from the sun, moon, stars, being present, on that same day.
Then, on day four, light sources being visible in the expanse.
I explained this before.

The sun was there, but light needed to penetrate the earth's atmosphere.

Again, you are making things up.

where does it say the earth blocck the sun from being seen, due to the Earth’s atmosphere?

Genesis 1 don’t even mention there even be clouds in the sky, prior to the 4th day.

so basically you making crap excuses, just to hide the fact, that the sun was never mentioned until it was created in the 4th day, along with the moon & stars.

And even should clouds cover the sky, why would Genesis omitted the creation of the sun in verses 1:3-5?

I find the excuses to be really absurd, double standard to say God is omnipotent but cannot see the sun through the Earth’s atmosphere, hence omitting all reference to the sun, until the sky cleared on the 4th day...especially from a Christian who believe the entire bible to be God’s words, including that of Genesis.

Do you really need to invent some lies to defend Genesis creation?

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes, people have posted their ideas as scripture.
I can't count the number of times atheist have said the Bible says X, only to have to point out otherwise.

Assertion without references.

 

[shunyadragon]

I would consider your statement to have merit, if the Bible presented it's record as guesswork or uncertainties, like most Hindu scribal work. That's not the case though.


Not much different. What makes the latter description correct though?


The earth is hanging on something?
No. It is hanging on nothing, as accurately described in the Bible. That's the only point made in Job.

The Earth is not hanging on nothing, it is rotating around the sun like the other planets, a fact missing from the Bible. You know 'gravity.'

Job is one of the earliest Bible books to be written. Its writing was completed c. 1473 B.C.E.
Where did you get that date? Oh. Don't tell me. Modern scholars.

There is absolutely no evidence that any book of the Old Testament was written before 700 BCE and no known text before ~356 BCE.

Can provide any evidence for the early date for Job as 1473 BCE.

Well, it certainly is consistent with other things that weren't known until recently, so I would say it's significant coming from a people living back then. Religious people at that, and not scientists.
Besides, these are only part of the story. Lumping all the facts together - historical, scientific, prophetic... accuracy, says quite a lot about its uniqueness.

There is very limited historical accuracy, No scientific accuracy, and prophesies are highly interpretive and have many different and conflicting interpretations.

 

[nPeace]

Are you daft?

No. Are you?

I really have no problems treating the Genesis Creation & Flood as religious texts, as mythological narratives (hence stories), just as I read all other ancient myths from other ancient cultures and from other ancient civilisations.

This is not about you.

I am not the one interpreting the Genesis or any other books of OT or NT, as if they were science or history or better…no, it is you and other creationists like you, are doing that.

Is that what you think I am doing? BWAHAHA
Referring to what the Bible says, about life and nature, is not treating it as science.
It does contain a historical record though. It says as much.

I know very well that the Bible isn't a collection of science treatises or textbooks, and I have been tell you absurd creationists since I have joined my 3rd forum (here, 2006; my 1st forum back in 2003). It is you lots of creationists, who either equate the Genesis creation with modern sciences (through interpretations and using false equivalence), or to presume the Genesis creation “superior“ than modern sciences.

I can only refer to what is written and what I understand.
What? Do you want everyone on the planet to believe and think like gnostic - "Oh. I only read it as myth."
Would that make you happy? Is that what this is about - your ego?
If so, might I suggest an alternative - namely coming down to earth, and breaking free of fantasy?

Sciences don’t just explain the HOW, which are the mechanisms, or the natural & physical processes. Sciences also explain the WHAT.

The WHAT includes the explanation on what the phenomena are, as well as any properties that phenomena may have.

since I have joined RF, I have been squashing such interpretations by you lot.

And you say that “For the umpteenth time, the Bible is not a science text book. So, it is ridiculous to the highest level of absurdity to constantly refer to explanations of mechanisms, and suchlike, missing from the Bible.”, but you are doing that again, below, with:

I'm not claiming the Bible to be a science text book. I'm only pointing out that it does touch on aspects of nature - accurately so.

The word “inform” relates to “information”, and information implies “knowledge”. Information and knowledge to me, in today context, are related, as information are “observations” like “data” that verify the knowledge.

None of verses you quoted from Genesis, Job, Isaiah & Amos, have any relating to information, especially nothing of worth regarding to the Universe as we know it today.

The word “heaven” or “heavens” are rather vague, but Genesis (and other OT) isn’t the only myths to use these 2 words - heaven & heavens - I find them being used in other creation myths from Egypt, from Sumer & later from Babylonia & Assyria, from Ugarit, from classical Greece & Rome, from Norse myths, and from India, China & Japan.

What they described are only is what everyone can see back then, the Solar System and very tiny portion of the Milky Way of several thousand stars. Basically they only see in the day (eg Sun & sometimes the moon) and the night sky.

what every single myths described, including the Genesis myths (plus those passages you quoted elsewhere), only describe what are seen in the sky, and nothing about the Universe as a whole.

If you recall my saying that sciences explain the WHAT & HOW, nothing in your quotes explain what the heavens are, and they are certainly not “informing” us anything about the Universe as we know it today.

you are the one using straw man, false equivalence and circular reasoning, when you associate the “heavens” with the Universe.

Even when Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Charles Messier, the Herschel family and other astronomers using small telescopes, still mainly saw tiny portion of the Milky Way, and misidentified the few observable “galaxies” as “nebulas”, even they didn’t see or understand the Universe.

We only just began to know about the other galaxies outside of the Milky Way, in 1919, when Edwin Hubble observed through the Hooker Telescope, the largest optical telescope at that time. Only then, that astronomy began the new phase of discovery, building observatories with even larger optical telescopes, as well as using technology for radio astronomy, that we realised just how small our Solar System & the Milky Way are.

So for you to say that the Genesis “heavens” is informing us “of the universe - the only one we know of today” - that’s a false claim.

You quote mining the OT, are just another example of you thinking the authors of the OT knowing more than they are really do.

do you lie this frequently?

It wasn't common knowledge that the earth was not supported on anything.
In fact, unlike the Bible, many myths held that the earth must be supported on something. Like this, for example.

It's remarkable that the writer of one of the earliest books of the Bible knew this.
Remarkable, because contrary to what you claim, this is not something everyone could observe and know.

No one had probes and cameras in space at that time.
So how could anyone know, unless this be true...
(2 Peter 1:21) . . .prophecy was at no time brought by man’s will, but men spoke from God as they were moved by holy spirit. . .
(2 Timothy 3:16) . . .All Scripture is inspired of God. . .
?

 

[gnostic]

It's remarkable that the writer of one of the earliest books of the Bible knew this.
Remarkable, because contrary to what you claim, this is not something everyone could observe and know.

No one had probes and cameras in space at that time.
So how could anyone know, unless this be true...

For one. The earliest books in the Bible, don exist until the 6th century BCE. They were composed during the Babylonian Exile.

No Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, etc, exist prior to the 6th century BCE. No such books exist in the Late Bronze Age (c 1550 - c 1050 BCE).

Two. You are making the kingdoms of Judah and Israel, as if they were living in complete isolation.

Cross-cultural influences are bound to happen when in extended contacts with foreign kingdoms, such as the Neo-Assyrian empire, Neo-Babylonian Empire, Persia, Egypt, Greece & Macedonia, Roman, etc.

A lot of what written in Genesis creation are found in older myths from Babylonia and Egypt, both places where Jews have resided during the 6th century BCE and later (eg Hellenistic 3rd to 1st centuries BCE). Prior to the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BCE, some population have already fled to Egypt, and continued to live in Egypt during the Ptolemaic dynasty (post-Alexander the Great).

The Genesis Creation & Flood were adapted from much more popular Enūma Eliš, Atrahasis and Utnapishtim, as Jews were living in exile at that time (6th century BCE), for decades in Babylon.

where do you think much foreign ideas of angels, heaven, eternal salvation, resurrection, afterlife, in Hellenistic Judaism and early Christianity come from?

They come from the Babylonians, Persians (eg hierarchy of angels, the duality of good and evil, the war between holy and wicked angels, compared them with the book of Enoch and book of Revelation), Egyptians (resurrection, holy trinity (eg Osiris, isis & Horus, and compared it with God, Mary & Jesus)) and the Greeks (resurrection, Elysium and Tartarus).

There are nothing unique with either Judaism and Christianity, especially not in their respective scriptures.

 

[nPeace]

The context is very clear, whether it totters or not. It directly refers to the fixed position of the earth several times.

You're also neglecting the fact that the Cosmology of culture times the OT and NT were compiled was geocentric like all ancient cultures, with the obvious observations that all the heavenly bodies rotated around the earth.

Where can you cite in the Bible that the Earth and the planets rotate around the sun? There are absolutely NO references in the Bible that describe the sun as the center of our (solar system) universe, which would be wrong by the present cosmology. The concepts of astronomy of the time had no comprehension of our solar system and what is the universe.

Your playing Duck, Bob, and Wessal

You are playing brilliant beyond all understanding. Which is the same as beyond all reason.
Hence, you ignore the context, which does not support your assertion, and insist you are right... regardless.
You are not right.

Duck, Bob, and Wessal? No. Just sticking to the correct understanding of the rendered Hebrew texts.
You are ignoring that.

What did God Create the universe from?

Basically, out of himself.
Have you not read? Isaiah 40:26

The Earth is not hanging on nothing, it is rotating around the sun like the other planets, a fact missing from the Bible. You know 'gravity.'

Whether the earth is rotating, dancing, or passing gas, has no relevance to the fact that the earth is hanging on nothing.

There is absolutely no evidence that any book of the Old Testament was written before 700 BCE and no known text before ~356 BCE.

Can provide any evidence for the early date for Job as 1473 BCE.

Plenty.
The writing of Job is credited to the writer of the Torah by Jewish scholars and early Christian scholars, which falls between 1500 and 1200 BC.
The vigorous authentic style of Hebrew poetry used in the book of Job makes it evident that it was an original composition in Hebrew, the language of Moses. It could not have been a translation from another language such as Arabic
Tthe portions in prose bear stronger resemblance to the Pentateuch than to any other writings in the Bible.

If you are going to tell me what modern scholars argue, before you start that nonsense, ket me give you a heads up.
I'm not interested in what modern scholars think.
They can debate, or conclude what they like, till judgment day. The evidence out there, has nothing to do with their interpretations.

There is very limited historical accuracy, No scientific accuracy, and prophesies are highly interpretive and have many different and conflicting interpretations.

Thanks for expressing your opinion.
There are other opinions, I consider more important, and actually more reliable, since they consider the Hebrew and Greek language, as well as the context of the texts - not ignoring these, as you have done.

 

[nPeace]

no, there are no mentions of sun, moon or stars in verse 1:1, or in verse 1:3-5.

I did not say that.

The light had no sources except that magically pop into existence, when god said there “Let there be light”.

You did not write the Bible, and I really doubt you care about understanding it.
No magic was involved. Creation isn't magic. Reading with understanding not magic either, but neither is it in our genes.

Light don’t simply exist just because some uttered words, as if incantation or spell from witches.

I agree.

In more older Egyptian myths, Ptah, Thoth and Isis were gods and powerful magicians, also used spells, just as Genesis 1:3.

Genesis says nothing about spells and magic, so you are trying to compare two things that are not the same.

Again, you are making things up.

where does it say the earth blocck the sun from being seen, due to the Earth’s atmosphere?

Did I say the earth blocked the sun? What are you reading?

Genesis 1 don’t even mention there even be clouds in the sky, prior to the 4th day.

I don't recall saying anything about clouds in the sky.

so basically you making crap excuses, just to hide the fact, that the sun was never mentioned until it was created in the 4th day, along with the moon & stars.

You are hearing things that are not said, and seeing things that are not written.

And even should clouds cover the sky, why would Genesis omitted the creation of the sun in verses 1:3-5?

It's focused on the earth, and viewing things from the perspective of the earth, from where the writer pens the account.

I find the excuses to be really absurd, double standard to say God is omnipotent but cannot see the sun through the Earth’s atmosphere, hence omitting all reference to the sun, until the sky cleared on the 4th day...especially from a Christian who believe the entire bible to be God’s words, including that of Genesis.

What foolishness did I just read. Who wrote that nonsense? Not me.

Do you really need to invent some lies to defend Genesis creation?

You must be referring to yourself.
I didn't write any of that nonsense you sat and wrote.

 

[nPeace]

For one. The earliest books in the Bible, don exist until the 6th century BCE. They were composed during the Babylonian Exile.

Sounds like someone stating a fact, yet I doubt even the most intelligent scholar, would go so far as to say they know that.

No Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, etc, exist prior to the 6th century BCE. No such books exist in the Late Bronze Age (c 1550 - c 1050 BCE).

See above.
To add... There are scholars who disagree with those making these assertions.
In fact, no one can claim to know what you just asserted. Maybe they might, but that would be hubris.

Two. You are making the kingdoms of Judah and Israel, as if they were living in complete isolation.

Cross-cultural influences are bound to happen when in extended contacts with foreign kingdoms, such as the Neo-Assyrian empire, Neo-Babylonian Empire, Persia, Egypt, Greece & Macedonia, Roman, etc.

A lot of what written in Genesis creation are found in older myths from Babylonia and Egypt, both places where Jews have resided during the 6th century BCE and later (eg Hellenistic 3rd to 1st centuries BCE). Prior to the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BCE, some population have already fled to Egypt, and continued to live in Egypt during the Ptolemaic dynasty (post-Alexander the Great).

The Genesis Creation & Flood were adapted from much more popular Enūma Eliš, Atrahasis and Utnapishtim, as Jews were living in exile at that time (6th century BCE), for decades in Babylon.

where do you think much foreign ideas of angels, heaven, eternal salvation, resurrection, afterlife, in Hellenistic Judaism and early Christianity come from?

They come from the Babylonians, Persians (eg hierarchy of angels, the duality of good and evil, the war between holy and wicked angels, compared them with the book of Enoch and book of Revelation), Egyptians (resurrection, holy trinity (eg Osiris, isis & Horus, and compared it with God, Mary & Jesus)) and the Greeks (resurrection, Elysium and Tartarus).

There are nothing unique with either Judaism and Christianity, especially not in their respective scriptures.

I'm just listening to dogmatic claims right now, so I guess you aren't looking for a response. Is it time to charge our ego?

 

[gnostic]

The writing of Job is credited to the writer of the Torah by Jewish scholars and early Christian scholars, which falls between 1500 and 1200 BC.

The book may have been set in the 2nd millennium BCE, like the Exodus, but the actual composition of the book were written in the 6th century BCE, just like every other books attributed to Moses.

Second. The Hebrew alphabet don’t exist until the 10th century BCE, with proto-Canaanite alphabet being invented in the 11th century BCE.

Prior to the alphabet, only Canaanite cuneiform exist in 2nd millennium BCE.

there are no 15th century BCE evidence of Genesis, Exodus or Job.

your claims are of authorship in the Late Bronze Age (1550 - 1050 BCE) is false.

you are really dishonest person.

Please, nPeace...

​

Can you show us scrolls, clay or stone tablets on Job, that are dated to the centuries you have claimed?​

eg. You wrote: “…between 1500 and 1200 BCE. So show us the evidence (eg parchment, scrolls or tablets) dated to those centuries.

i know that no such texts during exist at that time…not Job, and not Genesis or Exodus.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I did not say that.


You did not write the Bible, and I really doubt you care about understanding it.
No magic was involved. Creation isn't magic. Reading with understanding not magic either, but neither is it in our genes.


I agree.


Genesis says nothing about spells and magic, so you are trying to compare two things that are not the same.


Did I say the earth blocked the sun? What are you reading?


I don't recall saying anything about clouds in the sky.


You are hearing things that are not said, and seeing things that are not written.


It's focused on the earth, and viewing things from the perspective of the earth, from where the writer pens the account.


What foolishness did I just read. Who wrote that nonsense? Not me.


You must be referring to yourself.
I didn't write any of that nonsense you sat and wrote.

Chapter 1​ [1:1] In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, [1:2] the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. [1:3] Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. [1:4] And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. [1:5] God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. [1:6] And God said, "Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." [1:7] So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so. [1:8] God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day. [1:9] And God said, "Let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so. [1:10] God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. [1:11] Then God said, "Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it." And it was so. [1:12] The earth brought forth vegetation: plants yielding seed of every kind, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it. And God saw that it was good. [1:13] And there was evening and there was morning, the third day. [1:14] And God said, "Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, [1:15] and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth." And it was so. Sounds like a lot of magic to me. Gnostic: "Light don’t simply exist just because some uttered words, as if incantation or spell from witches." Yep.​