Genesis Creation

[rrobs]

Probably one close to that of Eudoxus, which was a precursor to that of Ptolemy. And, of course, Ptolemy's system was based solely on observations with eyes only.

It isn't too difficult with eyes only to figure out that the Earth isn't flat. That can be seen when there is a lunar eclipse and those happen often enough to give at least that much information. What we now know as the rotation of the Earth shows up as the motion of the sun and stars across the sky to reappear the next day or night.

Again, it is easy enough to see that the moon's phase has to do with the angle from the sun and that both the sun and the moon move with respect to the stars, which stay in the same relative positions in the sky. The cyclical nature of both the movement of the moon and that of the sun have been very apparent since ancient times and probably before there was writing.

That *does* suggest a background dome on which the stars are placed with the sun, moon, and planets moving in front of that dome. How to deal with the specific motion of the planets against that background would be the main sticking point (which, by the way, it was for Ptolemy).

To get to a heliocentric model as opposed to a geocentric model is very tricky without a telescope to give some extra information. One big clue is the brightness of Venus, but the phases of Venus aren't visible without a telescope, so that doesn't go a long way. Another is the retrograde motion of the planets in the sky, but with the accuracy possible with only naked eye observation, there are other systems that work reasonably well.

As far as the Bible goes, the flat Earth surrounded by ocean and under a sky dome is certainly less sophisticated than a reasonably intelligent observer with eyes only could make.

I was with you until the last paragraph. How can you summarily call an entire civilization less than reasonably intelligent? I dare say you would have thought exactly like them had you lived at that time. Otherwise, pretty good points.

 

[rrobs]

Who gave you the authority to know that that picture doesn't somehow represent reality?

John Glenn, Alan Shepard, Neil Armstrong, and many other guys like them. They seemed to know what they were doing.

 

[rrobs]

I don't see why not. There are plenty of ways God could have given those primitive people scientific knowledge that they could not possibly have known about, and in a way that clearly and unambiguously describes it. For example:

And the Earth moved in a great circle around the sun, held in place by the sun's mass. And the circle was not perfect, but was longer in one direction than the perpendicular, and the passage of the Earth swept out equal areas in equal times. And the sun shone with the light of its tiniest parts coming together.​

It describes very nicely the following facts:

1. the Earth has an elliptical orbit
2. the sun's mass giving it gravity
3. Kepler's second law of planetary motion
4. the sun glows because of nuclear fusion.

There is no way for people living a thousand years ago to know any of this stuff. And it is written in simple language that people back then could have understood.

But we don't ever see anything like this. Every passage in the Bible is something that could have been written by people at the time, and any claims that a passage conveys some scientific information that was not known back then rely on the passage being so vague that it can be interpreted to mean whatever the reader wants.

By pure visual observation only, how can you prove that day and night are a result of the earth's rotation?

The only thing you could actually observe is that the sun comes up in the East, travels across the sky and sets in the West. With nothing but that observation, the only logical conclusion is that the sun moves, while the earth stands still.

 

[robocop (actually)]

John Glenn, Alan Shepard, Neil Armstrong, and many other guys like them. They seemed to know what they were doing.

Doesn't matter... they dont represent that diagram.

 

[rrobs]

Thought exercise: imagine where we would be if we had followed the scientific method of the Greeks instead of the "just believe" method of the Semites.

I think we did follow the Greeks, so we don't know exactly how the world would be had society believed God's words instead of Plato.

I know God says we should all love one another, to put others ahead of ourselves. I can't help but think the world would be somewhat better if we all did that.

 

[rrobs]

The OT is not about Jesus, no Jewish scholar would ever say that and the gospels are obvious fiction using every mythic device possible, are not eyewitness accounts and not written independant of each other.

Oh well, if the gospels are in fact fiction then Luke has no meaning and your proposition could be true. Still, Luke was written and he tried to say something.

What do you suppose he meant by chapter 24, verse 27:

And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
​

There are in fact many Jewish scholars who would take this for what it says.

The scholars say the gospel writers were not eye witnesses and you appear to agree with them. The scriptures, on the other hand, say there were many witnesses. Hmmmm....who to believe?

 

[rrobs]

I was thinking about the universe lately, due to these types of conversations. And the Bible says, (1 Corinthians 15:41)
Contemporary English Version
"The sun isn't like the moon, the moon isn't like the stars, and each star is different."
(A more literal translation says)
Douay-Rheims Bible
"One is the glory of the sun, another the glory of the moon, and another the glory of the stars. For star differeth from star in glory."

So especially when it says that star differs from star in glory, how did the Bible writer know that? While heavenly bodies may look somewhat similar to our eye as we look into the sky, substance and topography is different. As it is written, the sun is one type of substance, the moon another, the stars differ one from the other.

Good questions. Food for further thought to be sure, but right off the top of my head I would think it easy to observe the sun is like a gazillion times brighter than the moon. It is also easily observed that the moon is way bigger than the stars and that the stars themselves are all of a different brightness.

 

[rrobs]

that's a funny theory.
Thank you for posting it.
In case it means that anyone could come up with any theory claiming that the universe just disappeared, let me just refer to this one:
The OP just said that ...
I was just criticising that this is what one would expect anyway if reading the Bible.
For Genesis 1 did not present a representation of the current edition of planet earth, according to the Bible. For Genesis 1 needs to be put in lights of 2 Peter in order to get the whole picture of how the Bible sees creation.
So if Bible teaches that the earthes changed, it is exactly what the quote from your theory was about.
This is what Bible actually says.
The first heaven and earth perished already, as 2 Peter 3:5-6 says.
The perishing happened already during the flood. Hence, the current earth is not the one that Genesis was describing according to Peter.

2 Pet 3:6,

Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
​

The word "world" in Peter is the Greek word "cosmos" which refers to the entire creation, both the heavens and the earth. The flood of Noah did not destroy the entire cosmos, just the earth. There are a couple of Greek words translated as "earth" but cosmos is not one of them.

Peter is talking about the destruction of the entire universe which occurred sometime between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. The word "was" in verse 2 can also be translated as "became." Based on the overall context of the Bible, "became" fits much better. There is a verse (somewhere in Isaiah?) that says God did not create the universe without form and void. If Genesis 1:2 says the heavens and earth "was" without form and void, we have a glaring contradiction. As I I said, the word "was" in Genesis 1:2 can grammatically and legitimately be translated as "became." Doing so removes the contradiction.

I'm not sure, but I think the first heaven and earth, the "cosmos" of 2 Peter 3:5-6 was destroyed when Satan rebelled. That's a question I'm still working on though.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The first heaven and earth perished already, as 2 Peter 3:5-6 says.
The perishing happened already during the flood. Hence, the current earth is not the one that Genesis was describing according to Peter.

What makes you think that Peter thought that? Why would his opinion even matter? You have a very strained interpretation of a book that was probably not written by Peter who would not have been in any position to know what happened back then.

 

[Heyo]

I think we did follow the Greeks,

Eventually, after a hiatus of about 1200 years.

so we don't know exactly how the world would be had society believed God's words instead of Plato.

I know God says we should all love one another, to put others ahead of ourselves. I can't help but think the world would be somewhat better if we all did
that.

Yeah, that part of the message didn't really come through, even less in the times when we completely ignored science.

 

[rrobs]

This is fascinating. So Jesus did not originally know he was God's only begotten son, he learned it from reading the Tanakh.

The fascinating thing is, the text in Genesis 1 actually does not say that.

What did you know when you first made your grand appearance in this world? You didn't know you were anybody's child let alone God's. Jesus learned just like the rest of us. He started out with a blank slate and he learned as he observed the world around him, just like the rest of us.

Where in the Tanakh did he read that?

Well, I gave a couple of verses in the OP that say the whole enchilada was about him. Maybe the verses are wrong, in which case you may be onto something. Still, I'll stick with the veracity of those words and just confess that the OT, Tanakh included, were all about Jesus.

 

[Left Coast]

What did you know when you first made your grand appearance in this world? You didn't know you were anybody's child let alone God's. Jesus learned just like the rest of us. He started out with a blank slate and he learned as he observed the world around him, just like the rest of us.


Well, I gave a couple of verses in the OP that say the whole enchilada was about him. Maybe the verses are wrong, in which case you may be onto something. Still, I'll stick with the veracity of those words and just confess that the OT, Tanakh included, were all about Jesus.

The verses you cited were from the New Testament. So Jesus wouldn't have read those. Where in the Tanakh would he have read that he's God's only begotten son?

 

[thomas t]

What makes you think that Peter thought that? Why would his opinion even matter? You have a very strained interpretation of a book that was probably not written by Peter who would not have been in any position to know what happened back then.

look, I don't discuss with you.
Usually you don't back up anything you say, that's the reason why I ignore your arguments.
I highlighted your assumptions (red) that didn't come with the slightest bit of back-up information. Just mere declaration. Empty claims. I won't debate with someone the moment this is what their discussion comes down to.
Nothing against you as a person though.
There are others who want to discuss with you.
Cheers.

 

[thomas t]

Peter is talking about the destruction of the entire universe which occurred sometime between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

according to you.

Thank you for answering my post.

The word "was" in verse 2 can also be translated as "became." Based on the overall context of the Bible, "became" fits much better.

according to you.

There is a verse (somewhere in Isaiah?) that says God did not create the universe without form and void. If Genesis 1:2 says the heavens and earth "was" without form and void, we have a glaring contradiction.

There is no contradiction. Exodus 20:11 plainly says that God created the earth in 6 days. After 6 days, nothing was void and withouth form.
Effectively, the earth after the flood wasn't void either.

As I I said, the word "was" in Genesis 1:2 can grammatically and legitimately be translated as "became." Doing so removes the contradiction.

see above.

I'm not sure, but I think the first heaven and earth, the "cosmos" of 2 Peter 3:5-6 was destroyed when Satan rebelled. That's a question I'm still working on though.

it's your theory.
2 Peter 3:5-6 plainly says it was a flood that destroyed the earth, I'd say "the" flood.
If it was another flood... it would have been in need of clarification, I think.
Peter did not want to plant a misunderstanding there, I think.

 

[rrobs]

The verses you cited were from the New Testament. So Jesus wouldn't have read those. Where in the Tanakh would he have read that he's God's only begotten son?

Pretty much everywhere, starting with Genesis 3:15.

 

[rrobs]

according to you.

Thank you for answering my post.
according to you.


There is no contradiction. Exodus 20:11 plainly says that God created the earth in 6 days. After 6 days, nothing was void and withouth form.
Effectively, the earth after the flood wasn't void either.


see above.

it's your theory.
2 Peter 3:5-6 plainly says it was a flood that destroyed the earth, I'd say "the" flood.
If it was another flood... it would have been in need of clarification, I think.
Peter did not want to plant a misunderstanding there, I think.

Well, we still have to deal with the fact that Peter (inspired by God) used the word "cosmos," not just the earth. We also have to deal with the word "was" in Genesis 1:2. You can find several translations that translate it as "become."

One thing is for sure, we'll find out all about when Jesus returns, hopefully soon, maybe even this afternoon!

 

[Subduction Zone]

look, I don't discuss with you.
Usually you don't back up anything you say, that's the reason why I ignore your arguments.
I highlighted your assumptions (red) that didn't come with the slightest bit of back-up information. Just mere declaration. Empty claims. I won't debate with someone the moment this is what their discussion comes down to.
Nothing against you as a person though.
There are others who want to discuss with you.
Cheers.

No, I do back up my claims. You at best do not understand. What did you not understand in my previous post?

You have a bogus interpretation of a book whose authorship has been in dispute for over 1800 years. Studying the Bible involves much more than merely reading it and putting a flawed interpretation to what you read.

 

[thomas t]

No, I do back up my claims. You at best do not understand. What did you not understand in my previous post?

You have a bogus interpretation of a book whose authorship has been in dispute for over 1800 years. Studying the Bible involves much more than merely reading it and putting a flawed interpretation to what you read.

look I don't answer questions from your side, any more.
Answering these could lead to a debate with you.
I don't engage with you in any sort of discussion.
Here is why:
there are too many unsupported allegations in what you write. I highlighted the ones that I see as unsubstanciated claims in red color for ya.
Thomas

 

[Subduction Zone]

look I don't answer questions from your side, any more.
Answering these could lead to a debate with you.
I don't engage with you in any sort of discussion.
Here is why:
there are too many unsupported allegations in what you write. I highlighted the ones that I see as unsubstanciated claims in red color for ya.
Thomas

Those are not unsubstantiated allegations. They are observations.. Please note, you do not wish to learn, you apparently only want to preach. You should have asked me how I know Peter was not the author. If you go to sources written by actual scholars and not apologists you will find out why Peter is not thought to be the author of II Peter. Why not check out this source:

Authorship of the Petrine epistles | Project Gutenberg Self-Publishing - eBooks | Read eBooks online

When I do not provide a link in my posts it is usually because I am making a claim that needs no support if one has studied the topic being discussed. That does not mean that I cannot find a source. Ask politely and I will always support my claims.

 

[thomas t]

Well, we still have to deal with the fact that Peter (inspired by God) used the word "cosmos," not just the earth. We also have to deal with the word "was" in Genesis 1:2. You can find several translations that translate it as "become."

One thing is for sure, we'll find out all about when Jesus returns, hopefully soon, maybe even this afternoon!

yeah, sure. Jesus can come back anytime. In my country it's even evening already!

The cosmos in the first version of the earth... was included in it. I mean the cosmos was below or attached to the firmament. That one came down during the flood... and so did the whole of the cosmos.

Today, we don't see any firmament in the sky. I conclude, the whole make-up of earth no. 2 and allocation of the stars and the sun... changed.