The Search For Truth

[gnostic]

I did not say that.

I know you didn't say that.

I wrote:

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

...because you wrote this:

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 1:3 write of light that appeared from nothing, except God created light with just saying some words. There is nothing natural about light appearing magically.

nothing in verses 1:3-5 saying the light come from sources. You are the one who claiming the light come from sun or from stars.

the sun, moon & stars don’t appear to be created until later in verses 1:14-18, only after God divided waters and set a dome (sky) in between these waters (1:6-8), after creating dry land (1:9-10) then creating plants on the dry lands (1:11—12).

Only after vegetation were created, did god created sun, moon & stars.

that’s the order of Genesis 1.

you are the one who is not reading and understanding Genesis 1, and you are re-interpreting Genesis to fit in your perspective as to what the verses should say, but it don't. So you’re the one who taking genesis 1 out-of-context, by adding things that’s don’t say in verse 1:3.

In 1:3, light isn’t connected to the Sun. In 1:14-18, God had independently created a new set of lights from the original light.

 

[nPeace]

Genesis 1:3 write of light that appeared from nothing, except God created light with just saying some words. There is nothing natural about light appearing magically.

nothing in verses 1:3-5 saying the light come from sources. You are the one who claiming the light come from sun or from stars.

Lots of details are not recorded.
The Bible does not have to say, where the light came from.
We make inferences daily. Scientists do as well. You know this.
None of what they claim is ever said, by anything.
So that's a strawman.

the sun, moon & stars don’t appear to be created until later in verses 1:14-18, only after God divided waters and set a dome (sky) in between these waters (1:6-8), after creating dry land (1:9-10) then creating plants on the dry lands (1:11—12).

They appear that way to you.
Not to me, and many millions of other people.

Only after vegetation were created, did god created sun, moon & stars.

No. The word created is not used there. You didn't read that in the Bible. You assumed it.

that’s the order of Genesis 1.

In your opinion.

you are the one who is not reading and understanding Genesis 1, and you are re-interpreting Genesis to fit in your perspective as to what the verses should say, but it don't. So you’re the one who taking genesis 1 out-of-context, by adding things that’s don’t say in verse 1:3.

In 1:3, light isn’t connected to the Sun. In 1:14-18, God had independently created a new set of lights from the original light.

I think you should look again, and read along with a Hebrew interlinear.
Ignoring the original language is bound to keep one in ignorance.

 

[gnostic]

Lots of details are not recorded.
The Bible does not have to say, where the light came from.
We make inferences daily. Scientists do as well. You know this.

Except that scientists have been able to do a lot more, not only explain what light is, but also provide details on the sources of light (sun, light bulb, device that fire laser, etc), how they propagate through space as electromagnetic waves, or as photons.

Astrophysicists can even exactly tell you how the Sun is the source of different types of radiation (eg sunlight, ultraviolet light, heat (otherwise known as thermal energy), etc).

it is more than just inference, it is factual information, as everything that I have mentioned so far, are TESTED…meaning each these are supported by evidence and experiments.

This bible offered no explanations whatsoever, except that “God did it”.

“God did it” isn’t explanation. It is simply superstitions based on ignorance. The bible provides no knowledge, because it has none.

Saying God created fishes or marine animals can swim and dwell in the sea, or creating birds with wings can fly, are stating the obvious that even Paleolithic hunters and gatherers know about or the Neolithic farmers. What Genesis 1 have to say about birds and marine life are hardly insightful or enlightening.

I would be more impressed if the Bible actually explained anatomy and physiology of birds and fishes that enable them respectively to fly and swim.

 

[nPeace]

Except that scientists have been able to do a lot more, not only explain what light is, but also provide details on the sources of light (sun, light bulb, device that fire laser, etc), how they propagate through space as electromagnetic waves, or as photons.

Astrophysicists can even exactly tell you how the Sun is the source of different types of radiation (eg sunlight, ultraviolet light, heat (otherwise known as thermal energy), etc).

it is more than just inference, it is factual information, as everything that I have mentioned so far, are TESTED…meaning each these are supported by evidence and experiments.

This bible offered no explanations whatsoever, except that “God did it”.

“God did it” isn’t explanation. It is simply superstitions based on ignorance. The bible provides no knowledge, because it has none.

Saying God created fishes or marine animals can swim and dwell in the sea, or creating birds with wings can fly, are stating the obvious that even Paleolithic hunters and gatherers know about or the Neolithic farmers. What Genesis 1 have to say about birds and marine life are hardly insightful or enlightening.

I would be more impressed if the Bible actually explained anatomy and physiology of birds and fishes that enable them respectively to fly and swim.

You want a science book. The Bible is not a science textbook. SIGH

 

[shunyadragon]

You used the word likely, twice. You don't seem sure.
Neither do those promoting the multiverse idea. Our Universe Was Born in a Black Hole

However, why are you talking about expansion.
What expanded... the singularity? What's the singularity? Did that begin?

You are misinterpreting the use of 'likely' to suit your agenda. Likely simply means that in humility science does not deal with absolutes especially when there are unknowns, which is true through much of science.

The present facts available have determined that our universe began as a singularity or is cyclic. 'Likely' simply allows for future discoveries and research to provide more information concerning the origin and/or early history of the universe in a greater context which would 'likely' be Quantum Mechanics in a Quantum Nature of our physical existence.

ALL theories and hypothesis are tentatively classified pending more discoveries and research that would provide further information that either conforms, modifies, or find them false.

At present there is no evidence that our physical existence has a beginning or ending. The best answer at present is that our physical existence is 'boundless' beyond our time-space universe and every other possible universe.

It is some religious beliefs that have to deal with the subjective illusive quest or belief in 'Truth' and absolutes not science.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You want a science book. The Bible is not a science textbook. SIGH

Stop pretending like it is, then.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's science... which doesn't do God, Ceator, Designer.

Actually, being science, it just doesn't do things that have no evidence.
If there were evidence for those things, it would happily "do them".

Neither does the Bible describe the singularity as being “God”, “Creator” or “Designer“. It's not a science book, and certainly isn't forming hypotheses about the origin of the universe.
Rather, the Bible informs us of the origin of the universe.

No matter how many hypotheses man creates, he will never be able to say, this is the truth about the origin of our universe...

Man wrote the bible. So when you say "bible says x", what you indirectly say is "man said x and wrote it down".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What did God Create the universe from?

Basically, out of himself.

Aka, from nothing...


mwoehahaha

 

[shunyadragon]

You want a science book. The Bible is not a science textbook. SIGH

This is true, but you like others make scientific claims based on the Bible.

 

[Nakosis]

IMO, if you are searching for the truth, you are going about it all wrong.
One only needs to accept the truth that is right before their eyes.
That is the closest to the truth we'll ever get.

 

[gnostic]

Genesis 1:3 write of light that appeared from nothing, except God created light with just saying some words. There is nothing natural about light appearing magically.

nothing in verses 1:3-5 saying the light come from sources. You are the one who claiming the light come from sun or from stars.

Lots of details are not recorded.
The Bible does not have to say, where the light came from.
We make inferences daily. Scientists do as well. You know this.
None of what they claim is ever said, by anything.
So that's a strawman.

No, it isn’t strawman.

i am reading Genesis 1 as they are written.

No where in Genesis 1, from the 1st verse to the 5th mention anything about the sun or stars, until their creation from verses 14 to 16 (the 4th day of creation). Not when God created the heavens at the beginning (1:1), and not when God created light (1:3), which supposedly was “daylight” (1:5).

What you have been doing is adding your interpretations that the sun and stars were there at the beginning.

That’s not the sign of inference on your part, but it is sign of your poor scholarship. And if you are using “inference”, then your conclusion is faulty, because you were basing on premise (how the creation of light just popped into existence, Gen. 1:3) that were already wrong.

You say the Bible don’t have say where the light come from, but how can it be so difficult for the author to say the light came from shémesh שמש, the “Sun” in verses 3, 4 or 5?

It is just one word, shémesh, nPeace.

And how hard it can be in Genesis 1:1, for the author to say God created the heavens with sun and stars (כּוֹכָבִים)?

What YOU cannot seem to acknowledge is that the author(s) simply were clueless about nature of the light, or the nature of the sun and stars, so you get defensive and make up some excuses or illogical arguments to force the passages to fit in with modern knowledge about light and sun.

I know my reasoning are valid and correct, nPeace.

All you are doing, are making flawed and incorrect interpretations, and you are making poor apologetic excuses.

 

[nPeace]

Stop pretending like it is, then.

I don't have your lens, which from your perspective, you see what you see.
What you perceive in not necessarily so, because you feel that way.
I am not pretending anything. Another baseless accusations.
Is that all you do... make accusations about people... or do you actually address posts?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don't have your lens, which from your perspective, you see what you see.
What you perceive in not necessarily so, because you feel that way.
I am not pretending anything. Another baseless accusations.

When you attempt to tell us that Genesis describes how the universe, earth, animals, humans, etc. came to be, you are attempting to say that the Bible contains some sort of science. Sorry you can't see that through your lens.

Is that all you do... make accusations about people... or do you actually address posts?

I could ask the same of you.

 

[metis]

When a religious approach is used as a set of blinders to reality, then that approach should be abandoned. Generally speaking, fundamentalist approaches in religion usually are blinders.

 

[shunyadragon]

I don't have your lens, which from your perspective, you see what you see.
What you perceive in not necessarily so, because you feel that way.
I am not pretending anything. Another baseless accusations.
Is that all you do... make accusations about people... or do you actually address posts?

The fact is you have cited and argued from the perspective of the Bible and avoided addressing the science of evolution.

 

[nPeace]

When you attempt to tell us that Genesis describes how the universe, earth, animals, humans, etc. came to be, you are attempting to say that the Bible contains some sort of science. Sorry you can't see that through your lens.

I haven't attempted to tell you that. I showed you.
That's not saying the Bible is a science book, any more than saying it's a book on medicine and hygiene, when I show you where the Bible described medicinal and hygienic practice.

I thought only certain animals saw in black and white. I guess they need to review that, because the greatest ape evidently does as well.

I could ask the same of you.

You could. Are you?

 

[shunyadragon]

I haven't attempted to tell you that. I showed you.
That's not saying the Bible is a science book, any more than saying it's a book on medicine and hygiene, when I show you where the Bible described medicinal and hygienic practice.

I thought only certain animals saw in black and white. I guess they need to review that, because the greatest ape evidently does as well.

Huh!?!?!?! Sarcasm?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I haven't attempted to tell you that. I showed you.

Hence, you've done what I've claimed.

That's not saying the Bible is a science book, any more than saying it's a book on medicine and hygiene, when I show you where the Bible described medicinal and hygienic practice.

You're trying to tell us that the stories contained within it describe how the universe, earth, humans, etc. came to be. Those are questions of science.

I thought only certain animals saw in black and white. I guess they need to review that, because the greatest ape evidently does as well.


You could. Are you?

Do they teach you at church how to come up with these veiled insults you're always throwing out there, or did you pick it up somewhere else?

 

[nPeace]

Hence, you've done what I've claimed.

You're trying to tell us that the stories contained within it describe how the universe, earth, humans, etc. came to be. Those are questions of science.

I get the impression you don't understand the difference between a science textbook, and a book that touches on science or what is studied by scientists.
Or, you understand but just want something to argue about... strong headedly... like it's a normalcy.

Do they teach you at church how to come up with these veiled insults you're always throwing out there, or did you pick it up somewhere else?

You mean like, 'How old are you?.
I haven't asked you that.

I could ask the same of you.

You could. Are you?

I'm simply agreeing with you, and asked if you are asking?
How is that a veiled insult?

I would like to know your age, but I am not going to ask.
Somhow, I get the feeling you imagine that you are talking to your little brother, but nPeace is not your little brother, and no, you are not 10 years old.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I get the impression you don't understand the difference between a science textbook, and a book that touches on science or what is studied by scientists.
Or, you understand but just want something to argue about... strong headedly... like it's a normalcy.


You mean like, 'How old are you?.
I haven't asked you that.

You could. Are you?

I'm simply agreeing with you, and asked if you are asking?
How is that a veiled insult?

I would like to know your age, but I am not going to ask.
Somhow, I get the feeling you imagine that you are talking to your little brother, but nPeace is not your little brother, and no, you are not 10 years old.

Oh boy, more veiled insults. I'm a ten year old now. Thank goodness I know you don't represent most Christians on that front.
Thanks for reminding me why I stopped responding to your posts.