Genesis Account of Creation: Firmament

[JesusKnowsYou]

Eh? ".......embryonic waters of the planet it was birthed from"? So our plant was birthed from, er, a planet?

How does that work and how can it explain anything?

Or are you just "bearing witness" or something?

You cannot get something from nothing. Everything we know came from somewhere. Some place.

I believe that when God formed the Earth it was birthed from another world much like it. A parent planet that the Earth took after.

Then God added to it all the other things it would need to be able to support Human life. All of these things came from somewhere else.

All the seeds for the necessary plants most likely came from the parent planet or planets.

All the matter and information to create the various life forms came from the parents of those species that coexist with God.

Everything here, event he Earth, came from somewhere and Earthly things are patterned after Heavenly things.

 

[exchemist]

I dare to say that most Christians would ridicule the naive creationist account that comes from a literary reading of Genesis. Your account, basically.

Ergo, ridiculing the claim that the Universe is 6000 years old, Adam and Eve and stuff, does not entail hating the God of the Bible.

Ciao

- viole

Yes, indeed they would.

 

[exchemist]

You cannot get something from nothing. Everything we know came from somewhere. Some place.

I believe that when God formed the Earth it was birthed from another world much like it. A parent planet that the Earth took after.

Then God added to it all the other things it would need to be able to support Human life. All of these things came from somewhere else.

All the seeds for the necessary plants most likely came from the parent planet or planets.

All the matter and information to create the various life forms came from the parents of those species that coexist with God.

Everything here, event he Earth, came from somewhere and Earthly things are patterned after Heavenly things.

"I believe". I see. This parent planet stuff seems to be all in your head.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Now this is a response that often makes me smile.....what does all of that have to do with the topic at hand?

I am not a science denier.....I love science and what it has uncovered in the natural world. I benefit from its technology like everyone else...but when you speak about "germ theory" you act as if evolution and any other scientific "theory" have all been confirmed. Only some have....the rest remain as assumed. Do you know the difference? Assumptions are not facts.

Galileo was punished by the church for daring to contradict their entrenched belief....they lived to regret their actions because what he taught was true and what they believed was not. The egg on their face has never quite been cleaned up.

Science has a habit of being influenced by sinister motives. Splitting the atom for example, unlocking the immense power of something so infinitesimally small was an amazing accomplishment.....but look what evil men did to hijack those scientists into developing the most heinous weapons in existence.....!
Nuclear power stations that have rendered their surroundings as uninhabitable when things go horribly wrong.

Germs were relatively unknown before the invention of the microscope....and doctors didn't even know enough to wash their hands until the late 1800's. It's not a theory today because it's now an established fact.

Vaccinations have the potential to help prevent disease....but today they have become a ridiculous drive to pump as many pathogens into tiny bodies as the law will permit. The epidemic of autism has not ruled out adverse reactions to vaccinations as the culprit in certain children who may be genetically pre-disposed. It is not unusual these days to have autistic siblings. Denial doesn't really mean that it's been eliminated as the cause.

The Vaccine Injury Compensation Scheme has paid out over $4 billion in compensation to those who have been permanently damaged or to parents who lost their children due to adverse reactions to vaccinations. The law states that you cannot sue a vaccine manufacturer.....ever wonder why they are protected from prosecution?

Please don't confuse what science "knows" with what science "assumes" to know. Perception management is a psychological science developed to manipulate people's perceptions about all sorts of issues. Do you think you are immune to propaganda? Informed choice is the only one worth making. That means exploring both sides of every issue.

I am not a science denier.....

ONLY when it comes to science that you happen to agree with... sadly you deny science that inconveniently doesn't match up with your preconceived beliefs.

You act as if there's ONE scientific method for sciences that you LIKE and ANOTHER scientific method that sciences that you don't like use. There isn't. There's a SINGLE scientific method that's employed in ALL of the hard sciences. So you can't accept the scientific method when it yields results you like and then deny the same scientific method when it yields results that contradict what your holy book says.


As for your rant about vaccines... what the heck is your point? Do you know why people can't sue vaccine manufacturers? It's because there was a small percentage of the population that had negative reactions to the polio vaccine. IF they had allowed people to sue the manufacturers of vaccine, the manufacturers would never of produced the vaccine and we would never have eradicated polio. Thus a fund was set up to compensate the small percentage of the population that responded negatively to the vaccine. Sounds like a very logical and fair solution to the problem. What are you suggested should have been done? Should we have allowed such law suits and ended the practice of vaccination and simply endured the scourge of polio and measles and chicken pox?

 

[halbhh]

And how would you suggest I read it?

As metaphor, or allegory!

Should I take it all literally?

The Bible cosmology, you obviously disagree with what he said, and I thought it was literally accurate.

I am sure you and your fellow Christians all read it the same way, right?

Who's interpretation is the official one then?

From experience, the best possible way to read a great poem, or the scriptures also, is to clear your mind of preconceptions, and encounter the words, naturally, purely, as much as you possibly can.

It's the same as if you wanted to really experience great poetry from Neruda, or Rumi, or whoever. You'd prefer to have distractions and prejudices out of the way, and just encounter it, as it is, on its own terms, in its own wordings, without noise (like you'd turn off competing music in order to listen to 1 music at a time).

So, I prefer to wait for a moment when I can do that. It's usually a moment after some transition, like coming in from outdoors, or getting in bed to go to sleep, or waking up, or having spent some time hearing great music actually, or just whatever helps you clear out the noise of the world.

 

[halbhh]

That's a good article, thanks for the link. It does not say anything much, however, about the amount of water in oceans on the early Earth, only mentioning it in passing.

Where it is really interesting, though, is in its espousal of the hydrothermal vent hypothesis for abiogenesis. I had thought this was now disfavoured and that the leading candidate was once more Darwin's "warm little pools", possibly adjacent to volcanic hot springs to provide the sulphur etc. or or else tidal pools along the seashore to provide alternate wetting and drying. But this article claims hydrothermal vents are capable of forming "protocells" i.e. droplets enclosed in membranes. Finding a mechanism to produce membranes is one of the key challenges for any abiogenesis hypothesis.

This link may have other uses on the forum, actually. I quite often find it useful to be able to illustrate, to creationists, usually, the sort of research on abiogenesis that is going on. And this is a nice one.

Sure! What many internet dwelling YEC preachers (some!) I've seen get wrong is their unexamined assumption that the same God that is to have created everything would somehow not have created...physics? chemistry? See? It's a contradictory mindset, even from the start. That's part of why at least 1/2 of Christians just naturally learn (or many already seem to sense and know without even needing to ever consider it) that of course God could have intended evolution from the start, naturally. (and that it fits genesis 1-3 just as well as the random YEC notion) After all, He is to be understood to the the Creator of nature, no less! So, oddly, it's like the more militant YEC give me the impression (sometimes!) they might...lack faith, of all things -- seemingly unable to believe God could move through billions of years? or design physics so perfectly all unfolds naturally like a flower from a seed, by Design? See? (it's as if there is less belief in His ability there). In my view. Just my view. There's not a blanket characterization I'm sure. No doubt some have faith and some don't. I'd not just assume anyone in that group is always without real faith.

 

[exchemist]

Sure! What many internet dwelling YEC preachers (some!) I've seen get wrong is their unexamined assumption that the same God that is to have created everything would somehow not have created...physics? chemistry? See? It's a contradictory mindset, even from the start. That's part of why at least 1/2 of Christians just naturally learn (or many already seem to sense and know without even needing to ever consider it) that of course God could have intended evolution from the start, naturally. (and that it fits genesis 1-3 just as well as the random YEC notion) After all, He is to be understood to the the Creator of nature, no less! So, oddly, it's like the more militant YEC give me the impression (sometimes!) they might...lack faith, of all things. In my view. Just my view. There's not a blanket characterization I'm sure. No doubt some have faith and some don't. I'd not just assume anyone in that group is always without real faith.

I think the view you hold is pretty standard in the main Western Christian denominations. The main churches have recognised, ever since the Galileo affair, that trying to contradict science is a losing battle - and an unnecessary one at that.

I have, somewhere, a link to a series of lectures given in the 1840s I think, in Rome, by Cardinal Wiseman, Newman's predecessor. This was well before the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species (1865?). The object of them was to reconcile the teaching of the church with the revolutionary discoveries occurring in geology, which was changing the view of the age of the Earth and suggesting progressive development of life etc. So from the mid c.19th at least, the Catholic church was in the business of adapting its interpretations to fit what science was learning, rather than trying to stop the tide coming in. The Church of England and the Methodists did much the same.

In fact,I have read that, perhaps surprisingly, biblical literalism is to a large extent a c.20th invention, pioneered and popularised by the 7th Day Adventists, who took it to the USA....

Here is a lengthy but extensively researched article, by an Anglican clergyman, Michael Roberts, who is also a geologist, on the history of it all: https://michaelroberts4004.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/genesis-and-geology-unearthed.pdf

His main goal is to show that the commonly supposed opposition between religion and science in the c.19th is largely a myth, invented by a man called White, who wrote an influential book that did a huge amount of damage, much of which persists to this day.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

"I believe". I see. This parent planet stuff seems to be all in your head.

Can you provide any example of something being formed from nothing?

 

[exchemist]

Can you provide any example of something being formed from nothing?

Well in fact one theory of cosmogeny is that all the matter and radiation in the universe is balanced by the -ve energy represented by its curvature (gravitation). So some people speculate that the universe may have originated from nothing. Another example is the spontaneous appearance (for very short time intervals) of particle/antiparticle pairs from the vacuum. But these are transient phenomena, it is true. What these examples show us is that we need to be careful before we assert with confidence that something cannot come from nothing, counterintuitive though it may be.

However, be all that as it may, there is no justification for you to invent another planet for which there is absolutely no evidence. The science provides evidence of the Earth condensing out a rotating cloud of gas and dust, when the sun and the other planets were formed. That gas would have had water in it, some of which eventually ended up on the Earth and the rest on cooler planets, comets etc.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Well in fact one theory of cosmogeny is that all the matter and radiation in the universe is balanced by the -ve energy represented by its curvature (gravitation). So some people speculate that the universe may have originated from nothing. Another example is the spontaneous appearance (for very short time intervals) of particle/antiparticle pairs from the vacuum. But these are transient phenomena, it is true. What these examples show us is that we need to be careful before we assert with confidence that something cannot come from nothing, counterintuitive though it may be.

However, be all that as it may, there is no justification for you to invent another planet for which there is absolutely no evidence. The science provides evidence of the Earth condensing out a rotating cloud of gas and dust, when the sun and the other planets were formed.

You cannot provide a single example of something forming from nothing.

The science regarding the formation of the Earth provides assumptions based on known evidence.

There is no evidence that proves that the Earth was formed in our current system at the same time as the sun and other planets.

I believe that the Earth was not formed in this star system. It was created in the presence of God, near to His throne, and was later moved to where it is today after the Fall of Adam and Eve.

 

[halbhh]

I think the view you hold is pretty standard in the main Western Christian denominations. The main churches have recognised, ever since the Galileo affair, that trying to contradict science is a losing battle - and an unnecessary one at that.

I have, somewhere, a link to a series of lectures given in the 1840s I think, in Rome, by Cardinal Wiseman, Newman's predecessor. This was well before the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species (1865?). The object of them was to reconcile the teaching of the church with the revolutionary discoveries occurring in geology, which was changing the view of the age of the Earth and suggesting progressive development of life etc. So from the mid c.19th at least, the Catholic church was in the business of adapting its interpretations to fit what science was learning, rather than trying to stop the tide coming in. The Church of England and the Methodists did much the same.

In fact,I have read that, perhaps surprisingly, biblical literalism is to a large extent a c.20th invention, pioneered and popularised by the 7th Day Adventists, who took it to the USA....

Here is a lengthy but extensively researched article, by an Anglican clergyman, Michael Roberts, who is also a geologist, on the history of it all: https://michaelroberts4004.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/genesis-and-geology-unearthed.pdf

His main goal is to show that the commonly supposed opposition between religion and science in the c.19th is largely a myth, invented by a man called White, who wrote an influential book that did a huge amount of damage, much of which persists to this day.

Here's an interesting article I happened onto while trying to learn more about another view of Augustine.

The works of many early [and major, and also later] Christian theologians and philosophers reveal an interpretation of Genesis compatible with Darwin’s theory. [including the most well known names of all like Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, and others]
How was the Genesis account of creation interpreted before Darwin? - Common-questions

 

[Deeje]

I always assumed Deeje was female.

She is

....but its funny when people assume that you're male because you can converse on a topic when gender has nothing to do with anything. Sometimes they change their whole way of communicating once they know you're female.....should it matter?

 

[exchemist]

You cannot provide a single example of something forming from nothing.

The science regarding the formation of the Earth provides assumptions based on known evidence.

There is no evidence that proves that the Earth was formed in our current system at the same time as the sun and other planets.

I believe that the Earth was not formed in this star system. It was created in the presence of God, near to His throne, and was later moved to where it is today after the Fall of Adam and Eve.

On the contrary, there is.

Not proof of course - as you may know, no theory in science is ever proved - but evidence, we have all right. But since firstly you won't like it and secondly, being a mere chemist, I'll need to look some of it up to be sure of my facts, I'll only do this if you express interest.

 

[exchemist]

Here's an interesting article I happened onto while trying to learn more about another view of Augustine.

The works of many early [and major, and also later] Christian theologians and philosophers reveal an interpretation of Genesis compatible with Darwin’s theory. [including the most well known names of all like Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, and others]
How was the Genesis account of creation interpreted before Darwin? - Common-questions

Haha yes, Origen I know about. And that, mark you, was in 200AD!

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I always assumed Deeje was female.

Except in the Catholic Church, doesn't matter. I never ask people their gender, when it isn't obvious to me. Don't care enough.

 

[Jose Fly]

1. People assume the mountains were the same height 4000 years ago.
2. People assume the earths conditions were the same as today.

Are you an advocate of some version of Last Thursdayism?

 

[nPeace]

Are you an advocate of some version of Last Thursdayism?

No. Leave me out of these philosophies. You know where I belong. Don't tell me you suddenly have amnesia.

 

[halbhh]

You don't need a single view on a piece of literature, or a Shakespeare play, though, do you? I mean, if you read Macbeth or the Merchant of Venice, you can get several interpretations of the messages conveyed and the nature of the characters.

But I must admit I find the bible a bit like Lord of the Rings in places: there are some interminable tedious sections in it, c.f. Tom Bombadil.

Everyone has to have a unique experience and perceptions I think. There are some parts in the old testament that are more like mere historical recounting (not large portions, but some books do have a lot), and for those I tend to skim through very rapidly. I'm not Israelite for instance, so I wouldn't need to know anything about the genealogies past say that of Joseph and Mary, nor anything about allotments of land.

But the 7 year debt erasure is interesting! Think on it.

The once/50 year Jubilee is very interesting! Imagine having that today. That's a modified, maybe improved really, form of Georgism, that seemingly excellent solution that retains individual agency and enterprise and fixes the seeming opposition of capitalism and sharing of resources (the more pure form of 'socialism') in a way that seems superior to other ways.

 

[Jose Fly]

No. Leave me out of these philosophies. You know where I belong. Don't tell me you suddenly have amnesia.

LOL....I was just wondering why you'd think we can't reach reasonable conclusions about the state of the Himalayas 4,000 years ago. You mentioned "earth conditions" not possibly being the same back then. What conditions were you talking about?

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

On the contrary, there is.

Not proof of course - as you may know, no theory in science is ever proved - but evidence, we have all right. But since firstly you won't like it and secondly, being a mere chemist, I'll need to look some of it up to be sure of my facts, I'll only do this if you express interest.

Why do you assume I won't like this evidence?

I never take issue with evidence, but rather certain conclusions drawn to based on the evidence.