What does the Bible say about the origins of the Earth in relation to what science say?

SA Huguenot · Jul 2, 2019

HonestJoe said:
That’s just your guesswork, ...

You’re basically wasting your time. I doubt few people would argue that the Biblical creation story can’t be interpreted in such a way as to fit current scientific understanding. It was interpreted to fit previous scientific understanding too, despite that understanding being later recognised as being in error and subsequently reined and adjusted. Other religious creation stories can be interpreted and spun to fit current scientific understanding too, even those which directly contract the Biblical stories. I don’t see how any of this really tells us anything concrete beyond some mildly interesting psychology around how humans create and consume stories.

Dear Joe.
Well guess what.
I will do the following and when I am done I would invite you to show me ANY assumptions on what I placed on the back of science.
1. we will see what the Bible actually say on creation of the Solar System. You are welcome to show me if there are any errors on what I say.
2. We will listen to what science says, which is a lot, but mainly the Nebular theory, which is the standard model for science.
3. Then we will investigat the origins of both the Biblical theory and the scientific model.
Once I am done with the above, I would like you to show me where I am incorrect.

Sofar I showed that the Bible say

the Earth was one huge shapeless collection of solids, gasses and liquids.
This collection changed into a spherical shape when the gravitational forces of this accretion created a Mud ball earth with a surface, which it never had before and divided the watrey mass fron the gasseous atmosphere.
Then gravity took it a step further, and water collected on one area of the earth, and land appeared.

In a few days, things will be finalised, and I will love your critisizm then too.
But give it some time.
Before I go home today, I will give the 3rd description.

blü 2 · Jul 2, 2019

SA Huguenot said:
True indeed.
Philo was a Helenist, and he used the Greek philosophy to explain the Logos, or Word as Paul and John used.
If it was not for Philo, according to me, our understanding of Jewish thought in the first century on the Trinity would have been much more difficult to grasp.

The concept of the Trinity doesn't exist in the first or second centuries. It emerges from the problem of trying to promote Jesus to god status while trying to avoid accusations of paganesque polytheism. It doesn't find its form till the fourth century, when it becomes the Trinity doctrine (which, as the churches acknowledge by calling it 'a mystery in the strict sense', is unfortunately incoherent.)

If Philo said anything about God being one entity but three distinct persons, I'm not aware of it.

Audie · Jul 2, 2019

blü 2 said:
We get the idea of skeptical enquiry from the old Greeks.

Greek ideas are influential in the NT too. The renaissance is due to the rediscovery in the West of classical (Greek and Roman) learning, and importantly influences the Schoolmen, from whose tradition we inherit the Enlightenment and thus modern science.

You do understand that you are not so much talking
to a person as to a cartload of bs taken straight
from AIG etc.

SA Huguenot · Jul 2, 2019

blü 2 said:
The concept of the Trinity doesn't exist in the first or second centuries. It emerges from the problem of trying to promote Jesus to god status while trying to avoid accusations of paganesque polytheism. It doesn't find its form till the fourth century, when it becomes the Trinity doctrine (which, as the churches acknowledge by calling it 'a mystery in the strict sense', is unfortunately incoherent.)

If Philo said anything about God being one entity but three distinct persons, I'm not aware of it.

Obviously you are off the track on the topic of this thread, but be as it may.
Philo described the Sophia, Logos, word as the "Mind" of God. I did not say he described the Trinity, but he gave atributes to YHWH and spoke about the Son of God, the Spirit of God, and the Word of God.
I studied Philo and was amaised to find that he had no problem in calling the Angel of covenant God. He had no problem to quote Isaiah 48:1 to 18 understanding that the atributes to God in his Spirit as God, and the Sophia of God to be God.
He did never use the word Trinity, because it still did not exist, but that he described the Angel in the covenant as God, is a given. The Spirit as god, also

SA Huguenot · Jul 2, 2019

Audie said:
You do understand that you are not so much talking
to a person as to a cartload of bs taken straight
from AIG etc.

AIG?

HonestJoe · Jul 2, 2019

SA Huguenot said:
Sofar I showed that the Bible say

the Earth was one huge shapeless collection of solids, gasses and liquids.

This collection changed into a spherical shape when the gravitational forces of this accretion created a Mud ball earth with a surface, which it never had before and divided the watrey mass fron the gasseous atmosphere.

Then gravity took it a step further, and water collected on one area of the earth, and land appeared.

You’ve not shown any of that. What the Bible says is what the Bible says, it’s just the raw text (not withstanding multiple translation steps to the English version we’re reading). You are giving your interpretation of the Genesis story and, in that, you are adding all sorts of ideas, phrases and elements of your own devising. There is nothing in Genesis about “solids, gasses and liquids”, it refers to “firmament”, “waters” without much clarity but you are using different terms. There is nothing in Genesis about gravity, a spherical Earth or a “mud ball”. There is also nothing in Genesis about how the “waters were divided” beyond God doing it. All of that you are reading in to it on your own.

Yet again, you are entirely free to take this poetic creation story and interpret it to fit pretty much any concept of planetary development you care to imagine – it is that brief, unspecific and open to such flexible interpretation. To my mind, that renders the entire process fairly meaningless though. You really don’t need to waste days of your time continuing through this process. You’re saying nothing that hasn’t been said countless times before (often much more clearly and concisely). Even if you get to an end point demonstrating that you can fit the Genesis story to current scientific understanding, what is the conclusion?

Audie · Jul 2, 2019

HonestJoe said:
You’ve not shown any of that. What the Bible says is what the Bible says, it’s just the raw text (not withstanding multiple translation steps to the English version we’re reading). You are giving your interpretation of the Genesis story and, in that, you are adding all sorts of ideas, phrases and elements of your own devising. There is nothing in Genesis about “solids, gasses and liquids”, it refers to “firmament”, “waters” without much clarity but you are using different terms. There is nothing in Genesis about gravity, a spherical Earth or a “mud ball”. There is also nothing in Genesis about how the “waters were divided” beyond God doing it. All of that you are reading in to it on your own.

Yet again, you are entirely free to take this poetic creation story and interpret it to fit pretty much any concept of planetary development you care to imagine – it is that brief, unspecific and open to such flexible interpretation. To my mind, that renders the entire process fairly meaningless though. You really don’t need to waste days of your time continuing through this process. You’re saying nothing that hasn’t been said countless times before (often much more clearly and concisely). Even if you get to an end point demonstrating that you can fit the Genesis story to current scientific understanding, what is the conclusion?

You do recognize a gish when you see one?

SA Huguenot · Jul 2, 2019

HonestJoe said:
You’ve not shown any of that. What the Bible says is what the Bible says, it’s just the raw text (not withstanding multiple translation steps to the English version we’re reading). You are giving your interpretation of the Genesis story and, in that, you are adding all sorts of ideas, phrases and elements of your own devising. There is nothing in Genesis about “solids, gasses and liquids”, it refers to “firmament”, “waters” without much clarity but you are using different terms. There is nothing in Genesis about gravity, a spherical Earth or a “mud ball”. There is also nothing in Genesis about how the “waters were divided” beyond God doing it. All of that you are reading in to it on your own.

Yet again, you are entirely free to take this poetic creation story and interpret it to fit pretty much any concept of planetary development you care to imagine – it is that brief, unspecific and open to such flexible interpretation. To my mind, that renders the entire process fairly meaningless though. You really don’t need to waste days of your time continuing through this process. You’re saying nothing that hasn’t been said countless times before (often much more clearly and concisely). Even if you get to an end point demonstrating that you can fit the Genesis story to current scientific understanding, what is the conclusion?

OK, for your convenience, how did the Earth look / appear on the morning of the 3rd day, if land and sea was seperated a few hours later?
Do you agree that it would have been nothing else than one huge mixture of Mud?
Or do you have another suggestion.
Please let me know what one have if one mix solid earth with water, if not a mud ball?

SA Huguenot · Jul 2, 2019

I find it amaizing that Atheists will accept everything on the Earth if it does not sound Biblical.
damn but they are close minded and vindictive.
What else does one have but mud if one mixes earth and water?
Bible derangement syndrome?

SA Huguenot · Jul 2, 2019

Audie said:
You do recognize a gish when you see one?

And I asked very nice AIG?
What is that?

HonestJoe · Jul 2, 2019

SA Huguenot said:
OK, for your convenience, how did the Earth look / appear on the morning of the 3rd day, if land and sea was seperated a few hours later?

I’ve already explained, the Biblical text isn’t anything like detailed or consistent enough to answer that question. Also, given the entire process is described as being performed by God using his unlimited divine powers, it could have looked like literally anything he would have wanted it to at any point. It is impossible to determine a specific definitive description of the world during the described process, you can only interpret and extrapolate what you think it might have looked like. The problem is that you know what the natural processes that led to Earth are believe to be and so that will unavoidably influence your interpretation and impression of the Biblical story if you’re trying to read it as any kind of valid representation of the real process. That’s just how the human brain works.

This would only work if you had someone with no idea of that natural process so they could independently interpret the Biblical text and see how consistent their impression matched reality. That would be difficult to achieve today but it’s kind of happened in the past given that people have been interpreting the Bible ever since it was written. That led to the development of things like flat-earth theories and geocentricism of course so maybe your interpretation isn’t as definitive as you’d like to believe it is.

Polymath257 · Jul 2, 2019

SA Huguenot said:
OK, for your convenience, how did the Earth look / appear on the morning of the 3rd day, if land and sea was seperated a few hours later?
Do you agree that it would have been nothing else than one huge mixture of Mud?
Or do you have another suggestion.
Please let me know what one have if one mix solid earth with water, if not a mud ball?

My answer is above: it was a water surface on top of mud. The mud had to be raised up and dried. Of course, there is a LOT wrong with that scenario, from violations of gravity, to ignorance of what stars are, etc.

Remember that the Canaanites (and early Israelites) considered the earth to be a flat, circular disk amidst water with a solid dome for the sky above.

SA Huguenot said:
Well, its dated with chronology was 100% acurate on the Exodus in 1450 Bc, accurate on Shalmanezzer in 721 Bc.
Mary Kenyon wanted to force jericho into 1200 BC, but her chronological dating was not what the Bible counted, but what she wanted to use as the so called "late" exodus dating.
She was proven wrong, and the Exodus of 1450 BC is acurate to Ai and Jericho of a date of 1400BC.
But this is off the point.
can you answer my question?

Except that date completely ignores the presence of Egypt throughout Canaan in the 1200's BC. It also is wrong in the details. The Biblical account was written during the late monarchy with propaganda to support that monarchy. It describes a political situation more appropriate for that late monarchy than the earlier dates of 1400.

The Biblical dates are reasonable for anything after about 800BC, but rather poor prior to that. They also ignore some of the HUGE events of earlier times, even ones that would have influenced the lands where the Israelites are supposed to have been (Egyptian battles, for example).

QuestioningMind · Jul 2, 2019

SA Huguenot said:
Ok so God says this is what he did every day
Well, it goes like this,
In the beginning:
God created the Heavens and the Earth
the Earth was void and dark without any recognisable shape,
and the Spirit of God hovered above the waters.
God said, let there be Light, and it was evening and morning,
the 1st day was done.
day 2
God seperated waters above and below a firmament he made
day 3
God seperated land and sea.
day 4
God placed the Sun, Moon and Stars in the sky.
We will go so far for now.

To me something was very difficuilt to understand, and it was this thing called a firmament.
I thought about it for about 3 weeks, visited some websites, read commentaries, but I could not get the answer.
Water that was above and below this firmament simply did not calculate in my mind.

I then memorised Chapter one and kept on thinking about it as I travelled to work and home. At that stage I had a good 2 hours travelling a day.

Now, this is not a hoax, or something I cooked up, but a voice told me: "What did the Earth look on the morning of the 3rd day?"
Without causing an accident at 140Km/h, my mind rushed around at the same speed.
So, let me leave the Question over to anyone who would like to answer.
What did the Earth look on the morning of day 3?

What did the Earth look on the morning of day 3?

The 3rd day of what? The beginning of the universe, since it can certainly be argued that the formation of the Earth actually began billions of years before with the creation of the universe. Or do you mean the 3rd day after the formation of our sun, which directly resulted in the formation of our planet?

What you mean by 'day 3' needs to be clarified.

corynski · Jul 2, 2019

SA Huguenot said:
Well, If God did create the Earth as it is now, you have a valid point.
What if He did not create it this way?

What? You have no evidence of any 'god' creating anything, that's what puzzles me, why you think such an event occurred.....

URAVIP2ME · Jul 2, 2019

SA Huguenot said:
A few years ago I decided to do some Bible investigation (study) into what the Bible say about the creation of our universe....................

The Bible say the Sun was created after the Earth, yet science knows that the Sun is part of the Universe, and our solar system is 8 billion years younger than the galaxy we live in. Therefore, the Bible is wrong.

The Bible say that the Universe is only about 6 000 years old, and science knows this is a huge error. It can be as old as 12.5 to 18 billion years! If the Author of the Bible could not describe the creation to syncronize with what science knows today, he can not be the God who created it all.

Please post where the Bible teaches the Sun was created ' after ' the Earth ____________________
Please post where the Bible teaches the Universe is only about 6,000 years old _________________
There is Nothing I find in Scripture that tells us how long each creative day was.
We don't know if each creative day was of the same or of differing lengths of time.
So, it is Not God, but man who does Not synchronize with what the Bible really teaches.
What we can Learn from the Bible is Heaven first ( includes the Sun ) at Genesis 1:1.
Please notice the word ' create ' at Genesis 1:1
Now please notice at Genesis 1:16 is Not the word ' create ' but the word ' made '
There is a BIG difference between create and made.
Kind of like a parent can pro-create a child and then make the existing child do something.
Do something like have the existing child be ' made ' to sit in a chair.

[/QUOTE]

blü 2 · Jul 2, 2019

SA Huguenot said:
Obviously you are off the track on the topic of this thread, but be as it may.
Philo described the Sophia, Logos, word as the "Mind" of God. I did not say he described the Trinity, but he gave atributes to YHWH and spoke about the Son of God, the Spirit of God, and the Word of God.
I studied Philo and was amaised to find that he had no problem in calling the Angel of covenant God. He had no problem to quote Isaiah 48:1 to 18 understanding that the atributes to God in his Spirit as God, and the Sophia of God to be God.
He did never use the word Trinity, because it still did not exist, but that he described the Angel in the covenant as God, is a given. The Spirit as god, also

But to say that God has various manifestations eg the Tanakh's ruach (arguably the psychological ancestor of the Ghost), or to say that God theologically has various attributes which can be imagined as personifications, such as Word or Wisdom, is a completely different concept to the 'triune' God of the 4th century's Trinity doctrine, formed from politics. And they make a kind of sense while the official triune line is incoherent.

corynski · Jul 2, 2019

SA Huguenot said:
Well, If God did create the Earth as it is now, you have a valid point.
What if He did not create it this way?

Hard to know what you mean..... the book tells you what god did and didn't do, doesn't it? For example, at gen 1:26 we read 'Then god said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the ......."
Never have I heard anyone say who 'our' refers to, or who 'them' is. How would you ever know anything from reading this text? For example the Nephilm, who appear right before god decides he's screwed it all up, and by chapter 6 he's threatening genocide as well as ecocide.

I'd call it a stupid book used in an attempt to control people.......

Darkforbid · Jul 2, 2019

EVERYBODY SHUT UP!!

I want to hear this groundbreaking big ball of mud theory!

IndigoChild5559 · Jul 2, 2019

The Bible offers us two creation myths. Myths are not literal, historical, or scientific, but they tell us deep eternal truths about our nature. The creation myths of the Bible tell us that God is the creator, that creation is good, that man is in the image of the Creator, that we have an inclination to sin (we are no longer in the condition we were in when created), etc.

What the creation stories do NOT tell us is the scientific or historical "how" or "when" of creation. For that we must look to scientific discovery.

What does the Bible say about the origins of the Earth in relation to what science say?

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member

blü 2

Veteran Member

Audie

Veteran Member

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member

Audie

Veteran Member

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member

Polymath257

Think & Care

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member

corynski

Reality First!

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member

blü 2

Veteran Member

corynski

Reality First!

Darkforbid

Well-Known Member

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.