Genesis 1

[no-one-particular]

1An All-Human person created the heavens and the earth --
2the earth was barren and cratered and darkness was upon the face of the craters and the Spirit of All-Human bore up upon the face of the waters

 

[steve_bank]

According to the Oxford Bible Commentary there is no clear interpretation for the creation story.

It could also mean out of chaos god brought order. A more culturally meaningful interpretation.

 

[DBT]

The earth was 'without form and void' suggest there was no planet to begin with. A contradiction because if it is 'without form and void' it cannot be called ''the earth."

 

[steve_bank]

The problem according to the commentary there is no direct translation for the earliest known words. Translations of translations ending up in English.

Did Jesus really say 'thee and thou' speaking in old English? Or did he speak in the common vernacular?

Without form could simply mean social structure.

 

[Swammerdami]

These paradoxes are resolved by Roger Penrose's Cyclic Conformal Cosmology.

And Penrose wasn't the first to find that solution. Isaac Asimov led the way in this story:
https://www.physics.princeton.edu/ph115/LQ.pdf
Leap to the end of Page 9 for the Spoiler.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The problem according to the commentary there is no direct translation for the earliest known words. Translations of translations ending up in English.

Did Jesus really say 'thee and thou' speaking in old English? Or did he speak in the common vernacular?

Without form could simply mean social structure.

We can interpret several things, especially if we don't over think what people knew back then. There was a chaotic mix of water. Bubble formed to create the sky and boundary for what is where we live. There is no universe here. The authors don't understand we are spec in a cosmos larger than imagination can provide. So their narrative thinks that during creation, the only place is here.

What we can't interpret is whether this bubbling mess always existed and god transformed it or whether it is saying god created the mess and then made it better for us. We just know from the scripture is that it was transformed into a flat earth.

What we also know is that this story is lifted poetically from the Gilgamesh Epic. So what the Hebrews thought isn't as important as what the Babylonians thought when writing that.

 

[steve_bank]

OMG!!! The bible is talking about the Bug Bang!!!

The BB proves the bible!!!!

 

[DBT]

It says so in the bible; God created the heavens and the earth, and as the bible is the word of God, it must be true. All settled.

 

[Bronzeage]

Suppose, for the sake of argument, an Omnipotent Being that is independent of time and space, created the Universe and everything in it, which we observe today. Is the fact that humans do not understand how it happened, evidence that such a being does not exist?

 

[no-one-particular]

Can you people please start your own thread to discuss these things

 

[steve_bank]

Can you people please start your own thread to discuss these things

WhAt more is there to say about a few lines in an ancient text that started as an oral myth by wandering nomadic sheepherders?

Your OP leavesa bit to be desired, kind of silly IMO.


Can you elanborate on what it is you want to dscss or the point of the OP?

 

[bilby]

Suppose, for the sake of argument, an Omnipotent Being that is independent of time and space, created the Universe and everything in it, which we observe today. Is the fact that humans do not understand how it happened, evidence that such a being does not exist?

Yes, it is.

It isn't very strong evidence; But it gets stronger each time we discover more accurate and detailed ways to describe the universe, without finding any hints whatsoever of the alleged omnipotent creator.

By the end of the twentieth century, it had become clear that we understand all of the interactions that are possible at scales relevant to humans, and still there's no hint of any gods - which rules out all the other major ideas of the people who hypothesised an omnipotent creator to begin with. That's pretty compelling evidence that their remaining idea isn't coming from a source worthy of our respect.

If some guy claims to have been kidnapped by aliens in a flying saucer, and we know that he has a long history of telling tall tales, and we have found zero evidence to support his claim, and the only people who are supporting his claim are those who supported his earlier false claims, then that's pretty good evidence that the aliens in flying saucers don't exist.

Even if aliens in flying saucers in fact DO exist, it would be foolish to believe that they do, based on the evidence before us in that scenario.

The evidence boils down to 'we cannot 100% definitely prove that this unevidenced speculation isn't true', which is the same level of evidence we have that there is no flying spaghetti monster.

Our evidence that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist is exactly as good as our evidence that an omnipotent creator doesn't exist.

 

[excreationist]

It has a poetic structure.... though YECs believe the sun, moon and stays were literally created a day before the plants. If you believe that a day can be a thousand years it creates an even bigger problem....

Framework interpretation (Genesis) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

	First triad	Second triad
Day 1	Let there be light (1:3).	Let there be lights (1:14).	Day 4
Day 2	Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters (1:6).	Let the water teem with creatures and let birds fly above the earth (1:20).	Day 5
Day 3	Let dry land appear (1:9). Let the land produce vegetation (1:11).	Let the land produce living creatures (1:24). Let us make man (1:26). I give you every seed bearing plant... and every tree that has fruit with seed in it... for food (1:29).	Day 6

 

[James Brown]

So first fish, then birds, then land animals?

The fossil record has them in a different order.

 

[no-one-particular]

The topic is:

1An All-Human person created the heavens and the earth --
2the earth was barren and cratered and darkness was upon the face of the craters and the Spirit of All-Human bore up upon the face of the waters

 

[Bronzeage]

Suppose, for the sake of argument, an Omnipotent Being that is independent of time and space, created the Universe and everything in it, which we observe today. Is the fact that humans do not understand how it happened, evidence that such a being does not exist?

Yes, it is.

It isn't very strong evidence; But it gets stronger each time we discover more accurate and detailed ways to describe the universe, without finding any hints whatsoever of the alleged omnipotent creator.

By the end of the twentieth century, it had become clear that we understand all of the interactions that are possible at scales relevant to humans, and still there's no hint of any gods - which rules out all the other major ideas of the people who hypothesised an omnipotent creator to begin with. That's pretty compelling evidence that their remaining idea isn't coming from a source worthy of our respect.

If some guy claims to have been kidnapped by aliens in a flying saucer, and we know that he has a long history of telling tall tales, and we have found zero evidence to support his claim, and the only people who are supporting his claim are those who supported his earlier false claims, then that's pretty good evidence that the aliens in flying saucers don't exist.

Even if aliens in flying saucers in fact DO exist, it would be foolish to believe that they do, based on the evidence before us in that scenario.

The evidence boils down to 'we cannot 100% definitely prove that this unevidenced speculation isn't true', which is the same level of evidence we have that there is no flying spaghetti monster.

Our evidence that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist is exactly as good as our evidence that an omnipotent creator doesn't exist.

I don't see how being unable to comprehend something is a basis for drawing conclusions about it. The fact that so many people who thought they did comprehend it turned out to be incorrect, does not change that.

 

[excreationist]

So first fish, then birds, then land animals?

The fossil record has them in a different order.

According to YECs the fossils basically just were laid down in the great flood. The fish were lower in the geological column and the birds were higher because they could fly higher. If the days were "ages" then that is a bigger problem.....

 

[excreationist]

The topic is:

1An All-Human person created the heavens and the earth --
2the earth was barren and cratered and darkness was upon the face of the craters and the Spirit of All-Human bore up upon the face of the waters

Though the topic is called "Genesis 1". Also I can't see those quotes in Genesis 1.

 

[DBT]

The topic is:

1An All-Human person created the heavens and the earth --
2the earth was barren and cratered and darkness was upon the face of the craters and the Spirit of All-Human bore up upon the face of the waters

Cratered? Where does that come from?

 

[bilby]

Suppose, for the sake of argument, an Omnipotent Being that is independent of time and space, created the Universe and everything in it, which we observe today. Is the fact that humans do not understand how it happened, evidence that such a being does not exist?

Yes, it is.

It isn't very strong evidence; But it gets stronger each time we discover more accurate and detailed ways to describe the universe, without finding any hints whatsoever of the alleged omnipotent creator.

By the end of the twentieth century, it had become clear that we understand all of the interactions that are possible at scales relevant to humans, and still there's no hint of any gods - which rules out all the other major ideas of the people who hypothesised an omnipotent creator to begin with. That's pretty compelling evidence that their remaining idea isn't coming from a source worthy of our respect.

If some guy claims to have been kidnapped by aliens in a flying saucer, and we know that he has a long history of telling tall tales, and we have found zero evidence to support his claim, and the only people who are supporting his claim are those who supported his earlier false claims, then that's pretty good evidence that the aliens in flying saucers don't exist.

Even if aliens in flying saucers in fact DO exist, it would be foolish to believe that they do, based on the evidence before us in that scenario.

The evidence boils down to 'we cannot 100% definitely prove that this unevidenced speculation isn't true', which is the same level of evidence we have that there is no flying spaghetti monster.

Our evidence that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist is exactly as good as our evidence that an omnipotent creator doesn't exist.

I don't see how being unable to comprehend something is a basis for drawing conclusions about it.

I think you misunderstand my position.

I am saying that we DO comprehend things, and that our comprehension rules out the assertions being made by people who are a) ignorant of the state of human knowledge; and b) desperately hoping that because they don't comprehend the subject they thought they owned, therefore nobody comprehends it.

The fact that so many people who thought they did comprehend it turned out to be incorrect, does not change that.

The fact that either our best physical theories, that have been experimentally tested to vast precision, repeatedly and independently, and never found to deviate from reality by one iota, are seriously and obviously wrong; OR gods (as described by every major religion in history, and the vast majority of the minor ones) are impossible.

The only god concepts not ruled out by modern physics are a tiny number of unpopular ideas that avoid being demonstrably wrong by not saying anything in particular about anything much.

That most people lack the understanding of reality to grasp that their beliefs must be false is a failure of our education systems. But it's an unavoidable conclusion - the God of the Gaps ran out of gaps when the Higgs boson was confirmed to exist, and to match its theorised properties, at CERN.

A large number of ideas that had been assumed to be the domain of philosophy and theology turn out to be addressed by physics - and in so doing have shat on the careers of a lot of philosophers and theists who never expected their navel gazing to become testable.