Sunlight is not Daylight

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Considering the Catholic Church had a habit of restricting reading of the Bible to only those part of itself, I'm inclined to agree with you.

Nonsense, but anyway...

 

[Native]

In my opinion, the Bible is given too much authority and is taken too literally. It's not a book of modern science and isn't compatible with modern science. Why is it that people continually try to force scientific compatibility?

Well, I think the Creation Story in the Bible CAN be taken scientifically but this demands a mythological, astronomical and cosmological insight which isn´t given in the biblical content as it has been very much de-mythified and personalized compared to several other cultural Stories of Creation.

For instants, the Egyptian story of creation, the Ogdoad, provides scientific hints to the Milky Way with it´s reference to the Goddess Hathor who resembles the Milky Way on the southern hemisphere and reference to the God Amun-Ra who "is Father to Hathor". (The Egyptian God Ra is also named Amun-Ra)

If taken seriously, we here have a Milky Way location of the Creation Story and if taken the biblical story in consideration, it too can be interpreted into this context (If having the needed skills mentioned above, "mythological, astronomical and cosmological insight")

 

[Twilight Hue]

Nonsense, but anyway...

What's your theory?

 

[Draecea]

Well, I think the Creation Story in the Bible CAN be taken scientifically but this demands a mythological, astronomical and cosmological insight which isn´t given in the biblical content as it has been very much de-mythified and personalized compared to several other cultural Stories of Creation.

For instants, the Egyptian story of creation, the Ogdoad, provides scientific hints to the Milky Way with it´s reference to the Goddess Hathor who resembles the Milky Way on the southern hemisphere and reference to the God Amun-Ra who "is Father to Hathor". (The Egyptian God Ra is also named Amun-Ra)

If taken seriously, we here have a Milky Way location of the Creation Story and if taken the biblical story in consideration, it too can be interpreted into this context (If having the needed skills mentioned above, "mythological, astronomical and cosmological insight")

In my opinion, it's a mistake to apply mythology to modern science. It also feels rather forced. I prefer to appreciate mythology for what it is and not read further into it. However, to each their own.

 

[Native]

In my opinion, it's a mistake to apply mythology to modern science. It also feels rather forced. I prefer to appreciate mythology for what it is and not read further into it. However, to each their own.

Ecaerea,
It¨s fine with me For my part I´ve studied modern consensus cosmology and it is far behind compared to the cyclical knowledge in ancient myths

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I believe that the Bible does not contradict itself, and when we read that light was created before the sun, then the only logical explanation is that sunlight is not daylight.

That makes zero sense.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is not the book of your people, it is the book of every man who serves God.

These people also show you "evidence" that man is a hominid, do you believe that too?

Obviously humans are hominids.
They are also primates, mammals, chordates, tetrapods, vertebrates and eukaryotes, among others.

Didn't you get basic biology in high school?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So you believe that man who is created in the image of God is a further development of a ape in other words an animal?

Obviously humans are animals.

Here's the biological definition of "animal":

An animal (plural: animals) refers to any of the eukaryotic multicellular organisms of the biological kingdom Animalia generally characterized to be heterotrophic, motile, having specialized sensory organs, lacking cell wall, and growing from a blastula during embryonic development.

How do humans not fit that definition?

Here's the definition of "mammal":

Mammals are a group of warm-blooded vertebrate animals and include the largest animals on the planet. They are distinguished from other animals by having hair or fur and mammary glands for milk production in females.

How do humans not fit that defintion?



And obviously humans evolved from an ancestral species shared with the other great apes. And further related with primates. And further still with mammals. Further still with chordates. Further still with vertebrates. Further still with.... etc

Denial doesn't change the facts.

For God nothing is impossible

Then you should have no problem with the idea that evolution was the mechanism your god used to create humans? I don't believe that off course, but at least it's a somewhat rational position as it doesn't require denial of evidence.

and the Bible does not contradict itself.

That's hilariously false, as others in this thread have already demonstrated.

I believe what the Bible says.

So do other people, who disagree with you on what the bible is saying.
Think about that for a second. or two.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

@Jayhawker Soule
Why do you believe people instead of God?

When you believe the bible, you are believing people. The people who wrote the bible you read.
You can pretend that your god wrote it and not people, but you would be mistaken, off course.

People wrote the book. The words you read there, are the words of men.

 

[Native]

three1 said: ↑
I believe that the Bible does not contradict itself, and when we read that light was created before the sun, then the only logical explanation is that sunlight is not daylight.

New
That makes zero sense.

It make all sense: The Light before the Sun is the central Light in the Milky Way from where the Solar System was formed = the second Light.

Quote: " . . the only logical explanation is that sunlight is not daylight".

The correct interpretation and explanation is that the first Light in the Creation is the cental Milky Way Light and the second Light, the Sun, provides the daylight.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

three1 said: ↑
I believe that the Bible does not contradict itself, and when we read that light was created before the sun, then the only logical explanation is that sunlight is not daylight.

It make all sense: The Light before the Sun is the central Light in the Milky Way from where the Solar System was formed = the second Light.

Quote: " . . the only logical explanation is that sunlight is not daylight".

The correct interpretation and explanation is that the first Light in the Creation is the cental Milky Way Light and the second Light, the Sun, provides the daylight.

I have no clue what you are talking about.
Sounds like you're making it up.

Please show me this "Milky Way Light" which doesn't come from stars.

 

[Native]

I have no clue what you are talking about.
Sounds like you're making it up.
Please show me this "Milky Way Light" which doesn't come from stars.

It isn´t I who are making anything up. Most Stories of Creation have it that the creation takes off with a chaotic conditions of "primeval waters" i.e. clouds of dust and gas which comes together in a swirling center thus creating a large central light from where everything is created - in this case in the Milky Way.

You have to imagine this central ONE light creating all other stars and planets in our Milky Way galaxy.

Edit: An example of the central luminosity in galaxies - Spiral galaxy - Wikipedia

 

[gnostic]

three1 said: ↑
I believe that the Bible does not contradict itself, and when we read that light was created before the sun, then the only logical explanation is that sunlight is not daylight.

It make all sense: The Light before the Sun is the central Light in the Milky Way from where the Solar System was formed = the second Light.

Quote: " . . the only logical explanation is that sunlight is not daylight".

The correct interpretation and explanation is that the first Light in the Creation is the cental Milky Way Light and the second Light, the Sun, provides the daylight.

Genesis say that the sun, moon and stars were created on the 4th day of creation (1:14-19), therefore they exist only AFTER the Earth was created (1:1-2), and AFTER the LIGHT was created on the 1st day (1:3-5).

This LIGHT it talk of in verses 3 to 5, is what divide day from night, and morning from evening - all without the need of the SUN.

The ORDER of creation based on Genesis 1 don’t make sense, scientifically and astronomically, especially with what we know now and the past 4 centuries since Galileo looked to the sky using a telescope in the early 17th century, and in the last 100 years since Edwin Hubble looked at space through the Hooker Telescope in 1919.

Galileo provided the evidence that geocentric model, where the earth is stationary, and the sun orbiting around the earth, is wrong. Hubble’s discovery was that the Milky Way is only galaxy among many galaxies.

According to your rationalization, this Genesis LIGHT come the Milky Way itself, BUT this reasoning of yours don’t make any more sense than Genesis pseudoscience.

First off, what we see from the Milky Way without telescopes, is a glow given off by the light from the stars that shine through cosmic gas and dust of the spiral arms: first (A) Sagittarius arm (Carina-Sagittarius), which is immediately in front of our view, and second (B) the Centaurus arm (Scutum-Centaurus) that immediately behind Sagittarius arm. Both Sagittarius arm and Centaurus arm blocked our view of the Milky Way’s Central Bulge (which would include MW’s bar) and the Galactic Centre itself.

Without telescopes that can penetrate through the spiral arms of gases and dust, there is no way for any ancient star gazers to observe the galaxy’s bar or its centre. The glow that they do see only comes from the the two spiral arms, and the light come from stars that shine through these two arms.

But according to Genesis 1, there were no stars (including the sun) till the 4th day. If this was true, then we wouldn’t be seeing those glow from stars that shine through the cosmic gas and dust.

The fact of matter is that there are stars that are older than our Solar System, older than our sun. That would mean Genesis 1:1-2, 1:3-5 & 1:14-19 are all wrong.

Our sun is at very least a 3rd generation star and have only been around for 4.7 billion years. Some older red giant and white dwarf stars give us indication that these stars nearing the end of their lives, are also older than the sun. These stars are classified, including our sun, as Population I stars, because they are metal-rich stars (high metallicity), meaning stars have more elements heavier than helium.

Second generation stars are known as Population II stars and they are defined as stars with low content of metal (or low content of elements that are heavier than helium or low metallicity stars). Some Population II stars still exist in the Milky Way, as many as 30. These ancient (Population II) stars have become red giant/white dwarf stars, or gone supernova or become blackholes because the stars have low mass. The lower the mass, the longer the stars will continue to fuse hydrogen nuclei into helium atoms; the higher the mass, the shorter the lifecycle.

Anyway, there are stars older than our sun, so the earth being older than the stars, Genesis 1:1-2 and 1:14-19 are wrong.

But back to the Milky Way. There is no way that the glow from the Milky Way’s arms, like the Sagittarius arm, would provide enough light to divide day and night for the Earth.

So your idea that the Genesis LIGHT come from the Milky Way is just as illogical as Genesis version of myths.

Lastly there can be no Milky Way without stars. But it is really the sun, not the Milky Way that provides light to the Earth where it experience day and night. Daylight only exist because the sun is shining on that part of the Earth’s surface for period of time.

 

[gnostic]

It isn´t I who are making anything up. Most Stories of Creation have it that the creation takes off with a chaotic conditions of "primeval waters" i.e. clouds of dust and gas which comes together in a swirling center thus creating a large central light from where everything is created - in this case in the Milky Way.

You have to imagine this central ONE light creating all other stars and planets in our Milky Way galaxy.

Edit: An example of the central luminosity in galaxies - Spiral galaxy - Wikipedia

Again, wrong.

No one can see the galaxy’s centre.

Our line of vision is blocked by the spiral arms of Carina-Sagittarius and Scutum-Centaurus. As I stated in my last reply, what we see are stars shining through cosmic gas and dust of these arm.

We cannot see the central bulge of the Milky Way. Not unless you have X-ray vision or infrared vision.

 

[Native]

Genesis say that the sun, moon and stars were created on the 4th day of creation (1:14-19), therefore they exist only AFTER the Earth was created (1:1-2), and AFTER the LIGHT was created on the 1st day (1:3-5).

And:

This LIGHT it talk of in verses 3 to 5, is what divide day from night, and morning from evening - all without the need of the SUN.

Yes, this is an illogical mess isn´t it?

But you cannot expect anything else if priests, ancient, historic and present scholars and laymen have no ideas of the cosmological and astronomical implications in the Ancient Creation Myths. Or simply ignoring an alternative interpretation and explanation when given.

So, unless you´ve changed from your "Storyteller mode" to serious interests in ancient mythology, I don´t bother to waste my time explaining on your replies.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It isn´t I who are making anything up. Most Stories of Creation have it that the creation takes off with a chaotic conditions of "primeval waters" i.e. clouds of dust and gas which comes together in a swirling center thus creating a large central light from where everything is created - in this case in the Milky Way.

You have to imagine this central ONE light creating all other stars and planets in our Milky Way galaxy.

Edit: An example of the central luminosity in galaxies - Spiral galaxy - Wikipedia

Ow, you're not actually talking about a real thing? But about legends and myths where I have to "imagine" it to be real?

Cool. But quite irrelevant when it comes to real conversations about real light.

 

[Native]

Ow, you're not actually talking about a real thing? But about legends and myths where I have to "imagine" it to be real?.

When i wrote "imagine", this was just in order to get your focus on the central and luminous Light in the Milky Way - as in the image link I posted.

Cool. But quite irrelevant when it comes to real conversations about real light.

Why would it be irrelevant and unreal when our ancestors spoke of a conceptual Light compared to the modern observation of Light as a concept?

 

[gnostic]

But you cannot expect anything else if priests, ancient, historic and present scholars and laymen have no ideas of the cosmological and astronomical implications in the Ancient Creation Myths. Or simply ignoring an alternative interpretation and explanation when given.

I haven't ignored your "alternative" interpretation and explanation, Native, because I have heard something similar before from you, from other threads.

They were anachronistic, fanciful and illogical then, and still are so now.

So unless you can provide a better alternative than the one you have now, I will still read and tried to understand your view now as then, but I cannot give credence to your view when it fly against all reasons and ignored the evidence, I will continue to disagree your view.

 

[Native]

They were anachronistic, fanciful and illogical then, and still are so now.

So unless you can provide a better alternative than the one you have now, I will still read and tried to understand your view now as then, but I cannot give credence to your view when it fly against all reasons and ignored the evidence, I will continue to disagree your view.

I don´t care at all as it is impossible to discuss ancient myths with you as you even don´t take astronomical facts mentioned in creation myths as facts and I´m surprised that you even refers to this:

Genesis say that the sun, moon and stars were created on the 4th day of creation (1:14-19), therefore they exist only AFTER the Earth was created (1:1-2), and AFTER the LIGHT was created on the 1st day (1:3-5).
This LIGHT it talk of in verses 3 to 5, is what divide day from night, and morning from evening - all without the need of the SUN.

Where you ignorantly conclude that day and night is happening without a need of the Sun.
At one hand you are confused and on the other hand you´re simply fact resistent. Even when explained and told in a simple language.​

 

[gnostic]

Where you ignorantly conclude that day and night is happening without a need of the Sun.

I am not saying that. What I was summarizing is that Genesis 1 is saying that day and night occurred without the sun. According to Genesis, the sun, stars and moon were created on the 4th day, but day and night were divided with creation of light on the 1st day, but has no mention of the sun.

That is astronomical wrong. This is why I think Genesis 1 is a myth without facts. Just about almost everything it say is wrong, not only astronomically, but also geologically and biologically, the order is wrong.

But you then claim that Genesis’ first light is from the Milky Way, except that Genesis specifically stated that this light on the first day was what divided day from night.

So in that context, I don’t think the creation of light in Genesis 1:3-5 was referring to the Milky Way.

Your interpretation of the creation of light being the Milky Way, make no more sense, and just as wrong as Genesis myth.

Anyway, I think you misread my reply, thinking that was my view. I was pointing out how unreliable Genesis is.

As to the Egyptian myths, there is no fact in it. You are simply interpreting the myth in the way it suit you, and that too have nothing to do with astronomical facts.