Regarding 'Creation Stories'

Subduction Zone said:

No, you are running away.

Click to expand...

Waiting.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Good-Ole-Rebel said:

Why am I not following (1 Peter 3:15)?

We are talking about Scripture, which involved your first questions, which I gave you in post #(199). Now you want to try and crawl away by using you scientific method of proof which is by 'evidence. Bad mistake.

In doing so you have proved my point. You don't know Scripture. You just know the trite phrases that people like you use against Scripture. But when the questions come...you hide. As you are doing now.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Click to expand...

All you did was to list verses that were taken out of context. They did not support your claims. So how does:

"There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses."

Support your claim that the Bible claims to be the "word of God"?

Good-Ole-Rebel said:

Waiting.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Click to expand...

Nope, that is falsehood. You are running.

Subduction Zone said:

Your bogus argument of trying to liken the Bible to hieroglyphics. You are not being consistent in your reasoning. If you can change misses into hits using that you can also change hits into misses. It is not a valid argument. If you want to claim that the Bible does not mean what it says then the burden of proof is upon you. I am merely pointing out its errors as written.

Click to expand...

The hieroglyphics was meant as an analogy. Ever done genealogy? Tried to figure out what someone meant?
Done a crossword puzzle? These are examples of incomplete or ambiguous information.
That's the Genesis situation.

Yes, the water bit is clear
Yes, the continents appearing later is 100%
Yes, the first earth was sterile - sure, maybe it doesn't actually say that, but that's the implication if life came later...

But... is the sun already with "the heavens"
how come it says "let there be light" after the earth? Two options - the sun is veiled or there was no sun at all. Take your pick in reading it.
what does the "firmament" mean?
when life first appeared on the land, did it mean land as in dry land, or land as in the clay or fresh water?
and when life appeared on land it then gives a list of land creatures - did these appear at that time or is it a list of what ultimately lived on land?

... but I can make a case for a creation sequence that accords with science. You can't do that with "creation myths" of other cultures.
Seriously, I am impressed.

I used to see the whole sequence as bogus - but then came the realization that early earth was like Titan today. And continents were not on
this early earth. And maybe life came from the land first. All this new science stuff in the last fifteen years.

PruePhillip said:

The hieroglyphics was meant as an analogy. Ever done genealogy? Tried to figure out what someone meant?
Done a crossword puzzle? These are examples of incomplete or ambiguous information.
That's the Genesis situation.

Click to expand...

And it was a very poor one. The problem with Genesis is that one cannot even come close to interpreting it literally. It is better to treat it as a series of morality tales

Yes, the water bit is clear
Yes, the continents appearing later is 100%
Yes, the first earth was sterile - sure, maybe it doesn't actually say that, but that's the implication if life came later...

But... is the sun already with "the heavens"
how come it says "let there be light" after the earth? Two options - the sun is veiled or there was no sun at all. Take your pick in reading it.
what does the "firmament" mean?
when life first appeared on the land, did it mean land as in dry land, or land as in the clay or fresh water?
and when life appeared on land it then gives a list of land creatures - did these appear at that time or is it a list of what ultimately lived on land?

... but I can make a case for a creation sequence that accords with science. You can't do that with "creation myths" of other cultures.
Seriously, I am impressed.

I used to see the whole sequence as bogus - but then came the realization that early earth was like Titan today. And continents were not on
this early earth. And maybe life came from the land first. All this new science stuff in the last fifteen years.

Click to expand...

Nope, wrong right from the beginning. Earth was very dry when it was formed. There is a reason that was called the Hadean. The earliest liquid water, and liquid water does not mean oceans, did not appear until about 100 million years after formation:

Hadean - Wikipedia

Subduction Zone said:

And it was a very poor one. The problem with Genesis is that one cannot even come close to interpreting it literally. It is better to treat it as a series of morality tales



Nope, wrong right from the beginning. Earth was very dry when it was formed. There is a reason that was called the Hadean. The earliest liquid water, and liquid water does not mean oceans, did not appear until about 100 million years after formation:

Hadean - Wikipedia

Click to expand...

Correct. But if I say "the early Earth was molten" you no doubt say "But that's wrong,
the early Earth was a concretion of celestial bodies coming together under the force
of gravity."

So I say, "Okay, the early was a concretion of dust, rock and ice."
And you could say "No, the early earth was a gas cloud....

You have to pick a starting point. We simply have no idea how many stages there
are in the great Scheme Of Things with our universe. And each stage back gets
harder to understand and more removed from our human experience.

Genesis gives us a point - it's a point people can understand - there's no talk
about "Snowball Earth" or meteor impacts or other events we haven't got the
slightest clue about.
It just says "In the beginning God created ... the earth. And the earth was without
form.... waters of the deep.." if I recall. It's written for a Bronze Age, earth-bound
observer. And it's factual (save for the theological seven days, seven signifying
completeness.)

PruePhillip said:

Correct. But if I say "the early Earth was molten" you no doubt say "But that's wrong,
the early Earth was a concretion of celestial bodies coming together under the force
of gravity."

So I say, "Okay, the early was a concretion of dust, rock and ice."
And you could say "No, the early earth was a gas cloud....

You have to pick a starting point. We simply have no idea how many stages there
are in the great Scheme Of Things with our universe. And each stage back gets
harder to understand and more removed from our human experience.

Genesis gives us a point - it's a point people can understand - there's no talk
about "Snowball Earth" or meteor impacts or other events we haven't got the
slightest clue about.
It just says "In the beginning God created ... the earth. And the earth was without
form.... waters of the deep.." if I recall. It's written for a Bronze Age, earth-bound
observer. And it's factual (save for the theological seven days, seven signifying
completeness.)

Click to expand...

The problem is that you are starting at an arbitrary point only because then it matches your interpretation of the Genesis account. That really is not a valid way to argue.

Subduction Zone said:

All you did was to list verses that were taken out of context. They did not support your claims. So how does:

"There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses."

Support your claim that the Bible claims to be the "word of God"?

Click to expand...

Go back and reread post # (199).

Waiting.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Subduction Zone said:

Nope, that is falsehood. You are running.

Click to expand...

Still waiting

Good-Ole-Rebel

Subduction Zone said:

The problem is that you are starting at an arbitrary point only because then it matches your interpretation of the Genesis account. That really is not a valid way to argue.

Click to expand...

But I am:

1 - I gave a possible reason for starting at this point - something people can comprehend.
2 - it's the point Genesis did start at and it might be a theological point as "separating" is
one of the main themes of the bible (flesh vs spirit, world vs God, sin v righteousness,
wicked vs virtuous, Israel vs Canaanites, authority vs obedience, priesthood vs laity etc..)
Thus ocean separates into to form seas and land, darkness is separated into night and
day.

Good-Ole-Rebel said:

Go back and reread post # (199).

Waiting.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Click to expand...

I already explained your failure.

But you can continue to run away.

Good-Ole-Rebel said:

Still waiting

Good-Ole-Rebel

Click to expand...

You mean lying.

I am happy with your loss.

PruePhillip said:

But I am:

1 - I gave a possible reason for starting at this point - something people can comprehend.
2 - it's the point Genesis did start at and it might be a theological point as "separating" is
one of the main themes of the bible (flesh vs spirit, world vs God, sin v righteousness,
wicked vs virtuous, Israel vs Canaanites, authority vs obedience, priesthood vs laity etc..)
Thus ocean separates into to form seas and land, darkness is separated into night and
day.

Click to expand...

No, you gave an extremely biased reason.

"My myth fails if we don't do this" is never a good excuse.

Subduction Zone said:

No, you gave an extremely biased reason.

"My myth fails if we don't do this" is never a good excuse.

Click to expand...

Look up 'separate' and 'separation' in the bible. Big issue - and God separates from the
beginning of creation till the end. That's not a bias - it's a major biblical theme.
But, at what point do YOU think the creation story should begin?

PruePhillip said:

Look up 'separate' and 'separation' in the bible. Big issue - and God separates from the
beginning of creation till the end. That's not a bias - it's a major biblical theme.
But, at what point do YOU think the creation story should begin?

Click to expand...

I am sorry, but when you have to go to such extremes your claims fail.

You tried to claim that the Early Earth was wet, it was not. Oceans took time to form. Waiting to start the clock until after the oceans formed does not cut it. Besides that there were still land masses, basalt makes a perfectly good solid surface to stand on. The oceans were largely formed by water coming out of the mantle and that took quite a while.

Subduction Zone said:

I am sorry, but when you have to go to such extremes your claims fail.

You tried to claim that the Early Earth was wet, it was not. Oceans took time to form. Waiting to start the clock until after the oceans formed does not cut it. Besides that there were still land masses, basalt makes a perfectly good solid surface to stand on. The oceans were largely formed by water coming out of the mantle and that took quite a while.

Click to expand...

You didn't answer the question.
But Genesis gives us a Starting Point, ie THE EARTH, LIKE THE HEAVENS, IS ALREADY FORMED
in Verse 1.
In V2 it reads, "Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep..."
Dunno, what does that really mean? Here's a Guess - formless means there was no real landscape.
Empty means nothing there - no land, no mountains, no life - the "deep" could refer to an ocean 3-5km
deep. And darkness ---- remember, the "heavens" have already been formed - they are out there,
somewhere, but you can't see them. VENUS IS SUSPECTED OF BEING LIKE THIS TOO - OCEANS
AND CLOUDS. SO IT WAS DARK THERE TOO, ONLY MUCH HOTTER.

SZ, I am happy with this. It's accurate for a stage in earth's history. The "formed" earth could encompass
the gas cloud, meteror/dust conglomeration, lava stuff. But WHEN it was "formed" this is what it looked
like. Dark, sterile ocean world.

PruePhillip said:

You didn't answer the question.
But Genesis gives us a Starting Point, ie THE EARTH, LIKE THE HEAVENS, IS ALREADY FORMED
in Verse 1.
In V2 it reads, "Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep..."
Dunno, what does that really mean? Here's a Guess - formless means there was no real landscape.
Empty means nothing there - no land, no mountains, no life - the "deep" could refer to an ocean 3-5km
deep. And darkness ---- remember, the "heavens" have already been formed - they are out there,
somewhere, but you can't see them. VENUS IS SUSPECTED OF BEING LIKE THIS TOO - OCEANS
AND CLOUDS. SO IT WAS DARK THERE TOO, ONLY MUCH HOTTER.

SZ, I am happy with this. It's accurate for a stage in earth's history. The "formed" earth could encompass
the gas cloud, meteror/dust conglomeration, lava stuff. But WHEN it was "formed" this is what it looked
like. Dark, sterile ocean world.

Click to expand...

But it was not "formless". Again you quoted a part of Genesis that is simply wrong.

You are once again making the mistake of reinterpreting after the fact. If Genesis was a reliable source it would have led to discoveries instead of opposing them.

Subduction Zone said:

But it was not "formless". Again you quoted a part of Genesis that is simply wrong.

You are once again making the mistake of reinterpreting after the fact. If Genesis was a reliable source it would have led to discoveries instead of opposing them.

Click to expand...

What is "formless" ??
Without form. I suppose that means there were no features in this dark world.
You would be hard pressed to navigate - no stars, moon, sun, coastline, mountain
range - nothing but water. Maybe that is what formless means.
Netbible - "Now the earth was without shape and empty"

Glad you brought the discovery bit up.
I too believed, going back last century, that Genesis did not make scientific sense.
It dates me (!) but going back to early 1960's I read books about the early earth
being super dry; that continents have been here forever; that life came from the
sea; that the early atmosphere was transparent --- it's there in many paintings.

Had we ALLOWED GENESIS TO MAKE A POINT we would have said that maybe
Earth, like Venus, was a gleaming white orb - that no continents existed - that water
was simply everywhere - that life came from the "dry" land first. Etc..

PruePhillip said:

What is "formless" ??
Without form. I suppose that means there were no features in this dark world.
You would be hard pressed to navigate - no stars, moon, sun, coastline, mountain
range - nothing but water. Maybe that is what formless means.
Netbible - "Now the earth was without shape and empty"

Glad you brought the discovery bit up.
I too believed, going back last century, that Genesis did not make scientific sense.
It dates me (!) but going back to early 1960's I read books about the early earth
being super dry; that continents have been here forever; that life came from the
sea; that the early atmosphere was transparent --- it's there in many paintings.

Had we ALLOWED GENESIS TO MAKE A POINT we would have said that maybe
Earth, like Venus, was a gleaming white orb - that no continents existed - that water
was simply everywhere - that life came from the "dry" land first. Etc..

Click to expand...

At this point you are merely repeating errors. We are done. You failed.

Subduction Zone said:

At this point you are merely repeating errors. We are done. You failed.

Click to expand...

I failed?!
Answered everything. But thanks, I learned a lot from this - had to really think
more deeply about the issues. Most respondents drop off earlier than you did.
Thanks.