The Big Bang (Genesis 1:2-3)

a reply to: charlyv

interesting you say that. "Ruach Elohim" is the name of God used in Genesis 1:2 (in the 'names of God' bible translation), and 'Ruach' does not appear again in Genesis. Ruach means breath, so this is like the breath of God; expansion, contraction, repeat.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The example you gave replacing unicorn with men is an example of poor grammar, there is no need for the word "AND" between verses. Are you saying the translations used poor grammar? I doubt scholars/translators would be as careless as to use poor grammar.

Who cares really? I'm not sure why I've let it go on this long, maybe I find it entertaining. Either way, you're going a long way to deny unicorns in the bible when the same book has a talking snake. If God can make a talking snake, why not a unicorn? At least unicorns are maybe somewhat possible, a talking snake isn't.

I still disagree with your opinion though, the verses denote a difference between the unicorn and bulls/bullocks. I'll leave it at that. Wanna deny talking snakes actually existed? I didn't think so.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

I did read your post closely but I admittedly stopped giving it much consideration after you said this:

"Genesis 1:2-3 doesn't say there was emptiness, or otherwise hint at nothingness. It doesn't even speak of anything besides the Earth. Which it states is already there. Formless, empty, and dark. But also, covered in water. "

when Genesis 1:2 says:

"Now the earth was formless and empty..."

So, my question to you is, did you even read my post? I adamantly believe that science and spirituality are two sides to the coin of truth, and unionizing science with spiritually-inspired works are the key to true knowledge.

In terms of the quotes you gave regarding geocentricity, we still to this day use the term sunrise and sunset. Idioms are rough to translate, and translations in general are fallible. But, I think what is key here is that when science matches spiritually-inspired works we are finally coming to true conclusions about this mysterious world we live in.

originally posted by: cooperton
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

I did read your post closely but I admittedly stopped giving it much consideration after you said this:

"Genesis 1:2-3 doesn't say there was emptiness, or otherwise hint at nothingness. It doesn't even speak of anything besides the Earth. Which it states is already there. Formless, empty, and dark. But also, covered in water. "

when Genesis 1:2 says:

"Now the earth was formless and empty..."

I really shouldn't have to explain it again.. Perhaps you can read my entire post again for context..

But simply.. You're trying to connect the Big Bang to Genesis.

The Big Bang has nothing to do with the Earth.

The "emptiness" or "nothingness" prior to the Big Bang..

Is NOT the same emptiness of the formless Earth.

I also clarified that in a response to another user.

Regardless of whatever you decide to read or ignore you clearly have a heavy emphasis on your confirmation bias. Any discussion we could have would be pointless because you've already made up your mind.

I really don't feel like breaking down the verses in regards to Geocentric model either since you will probably half read that post too.

You clearly take what confirms your beliefs and ignore the rest.

Have a nice day.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The example you gave replacing unicorn with men is an example of poor grammar, there is no need for the word "AND" between verses. Are you saying the translations used poor grammar? I doubt scholars/translators would be as careless as to use poor grammar.

And does not appear in the original text, it was added in the English translation.

Isa 34:7
Wild oxen will also fall with them
And young bulls with strong ones;
Thus their land will be soaked with blood,
And their dust become greasy with fat.

AND is in that translation, and clearly the bulls and bullocks are descriptor words for oxen. Unicorns are equine, and do not have bulls and bullocks.

Isa 34:7
And the wild oxen will fall with them,
the bull calves and the great bulls.
Their land will be drenched with blood,
and the dust will be soaked with fat.

AND does not appear in that translation, as it's not in the original translation, the word simply does not exist in the original language and has to be "filled in" for English.

As I have already told you, I have no interest in denying anything, other than ignorance. I apologize if you would rather remain ignorant.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Okay, you're right, I'm wrong. Happy? Why not deny the ignorance of believing in a talking snake?

But I have to wonder, why not say "oxen calves and great oxen" instead of changing the term used to bull?

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Okay, you're right, I'm wrong. Happy? Why not deny the ignorance of believing in a talking snake?

You claimed the Bible mentions a talking snake. It does. There is no ignorance in that statement, nothing to deny. You are stuck on me trying to convince you to believe in the Bible, I am not, I was not. I was never convincing you, I was correcting you. Think the Bible is silly, I am cool with that.

But I have to wonder, why not say "oxen calves and great oxen" instead of changing the term used to bull?

Because there is no need to. For the same reason you don't need to say white people and black people. People, white and black, will suffice.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

I see what you're saying now. that is a good point and a thorn in my argument. My only response could be that the earth sun and moon aren't what we think they are. I will make a more thorough thread tomorrow that defines Ruach Elohim, and "the waters" which will hopefully have less discussion of unicorns. Or I might not because honestly I don't even know, I just think our current model of our cosmos is missing a major cornerstone.

Also, be aware of your own bias

a reply to: cooperton

Sorry for my harshness in my last post. I have no excuses!

It's frustrating when it feels like someone is only half paying attention or determined to stick to their position no matter what. But that road goes both ways. And ofc, some things are lost in translation over the internet.

As for my bias I have to admit I am pretty much solidified in my stance as an atheist. But I also need to remember what it was like being on the other end of that spectrum as a Christian.

Hope there are no hard feelings! Take care.

a reply to: cooperton

We are left with the conclusion that this was indeed Divinely inspired.

So you think Genesis and science hold hands as friends?

Keep reading.

It also says the Sun and all the stars were made after Earth had formed.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Well English is a shoddy translation tool when being translated from Hebrew or Greek in any case, not just with the unicorn verses. Hebrew words had several meanings per word, it was not as concrete as English is. How can you be sure you've got the right interpretation on anything in the bible? For all you know you're believing one meaning of a Hebrew word when it was actually another meaning.

The bible is an incredibly fallible way for God to reveal himself, why couldn't he do any better? Meanings of words have been lost in translation over 2,000 years, so what makes you think you believe the right way? God picked a very inefficient way to spread his message, almost as if his plan is... fallible.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Yeah it is hard to get a concrete grasp on things.

What initially brought me out of atheism was that spiritual leaders i.e. Jesus, Buddha, Greek philosophy, etc, all seem to point towards the same truth: We are living in an illusory world, and you can escape through finding the truth. We all know our leaders are corrupt to no end, and this is the lie that has perpetuated since the birth of civilization, but what is the truth? If everything i've been told is a lie, then anything is possible.

Honestly, tonight has made me not want to delve into Genesis again any time soon hahah.

**edit** this reply was intended for 3nl1ght3ned.

but, in response to you lucid lunacy, my only guess would be that the earth is somehow the focal point of this strange conscious matrix in which we live. Maybe size and orbital centers etc don't necessarily matter, and rather it is a conscio-centric model; a world that revolves around consciousness. My brains fried I think I'm going to go sleep forever.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

All is good, it was my fault initially, I should have read your post more thoroughly.

I hope your atheism doesn't mean you've stopped searching for answers!

a reply to: cooperton

I'm a fan of Sam Harris for many reasons. One of them is that he advocates the idea one can be spiritual, have mystical experiences, explore metaphysical concepts, all the while disbelieving in the truth claims of religions due to a lack of evidence to substantiate them. I like that. I relate to that. Like Sam I have also had profound experiences from meditation. Ones I would not hesitate to call mystical.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

That's all that matters. the reason I became attracted to Christianity, Hinduism, Greek Philosophy, etc, is because they reaffirmed the insights that I postulated about the world. I figured I would share this passage about what may be loosely reaffirming the big bang and see what other people thought. The Old Testament bothers me in a lot of passages, but I thought this one was interesting.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Well English is a shoddy translation tool when being translated from Hebrew or Greek in any case, not just with the unicorn verses. Hebrew words had several meanings per word, it was not as concrete as English is. How can you be sure you've got the right interpretation on anything in the bible? For all you know you're believing one meaning of a Hebrew word when it was actually another meaning.

You will get no argument from me. That's why it's important to use a Lexicon and search for every instance of that word being used. Much like the greater number of tests yields more reliable data in science, the greater number of passages used to determine the best meaning of a word will yield more reliable meanings. It's not perfect, but it will help avoid most mistakes.

The bible is an incredibly fallible way for God to reveal himself, why couldn't he do any better? Meanings of words have been lost in translation over 2,000 years, so what makes you think you believe the right way? God picked a very inefficient way to spread his message, almost as if his plan is... fallible.

If we assume God is real, and this is how He revealed Himself, then we can find several reasons I believe. Perhaps the idea is not to get caught up in the small details and nitpick over them (as a Pharisee might do), but rather focus on the important principles, which are not "lost in translation".

Was it a "Unicorn" or an "Auroch" ... the meaning was lost in translation and time, does it matter?

Want to know what was not lost in translation?
Jhn 14:6
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Maybe God wants us to focus on what matters, not Unicorns.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

well put.

Jesus even corrects the old Testament a few times (Matthew 5:38-39), so it is best to focus on the gospels.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Interesting, I did not know that about Sam Harris.

That is my view as well. Although, I have not personally had anything I would call a real spiritual experience. In the past when I've tried things like meditation, or inducing an out of body experience, I either fall asleep or it doesn't work. It's almost impossible for me to clear my mind so I've given up. I've also grown more skeptical getting older. It's not that I necessarily think there isn't anything "more" out there, it's just that I could never be certain it wasn't all in my head.

I have had a long term paranormal experience that I am 90% sure wasn't in my/our (family) heads.. but still.. I don't know that it wasn't.

originally posted by: cooperton
I hope your atheism doesn't mean you've stopped searching for answers!

My problem is there are too many questions.

Atheism only accounts for one of those.

Is there a God? Personally I do not believe there is.

To expand a little.. I don't believe any of the claimed ones exist.

I did not come to that conclusion overnight either.

However the possibility that there is one/many? I could not say.

Though, I admit I find it incredibly unlikely.