Cosmogony, Abiogenesis, & Evolution

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

I have a confession to make, I was researching this out, and found to my utter astonishment that many Christian scholars do in fact believe the sun was created on the forth day after grass!

Because that is exactly what the Bible says. Did you not read anything I posted on the subject? There are even different words used for the term 'light' as referring the luminance and the term 'light' used to describe celestial bodies...

They think the light before that was divine light directly from God himself.
I have never believed that. Now I am starting to understand the frustration and disdain of the atheistic evolutionary perceptive towards the fundamentalist Christians.

...evolution has absolutely nothing to do with this. Neither does atheism.
This is really an issue of you refusing to accept that you are wrong on an issue of your own religious text.

But I am going to post one last time on this point. This is not the perspective of most, but I found a quote that supports my personal belief.

A bad quote that doesn't make sense...and doesn't have a linked reference.

SCOFIELD REFERENCE NOTES

The new beginning - the first day: light diffused

...How...what?
How is the light being diffused?
What is diffusing it?

You can't just say "light being diffused". I work with lighting a lot, you actually need something to diffuse it

Let there be light Neither here nor in verses 14-18 is an original creative act implied.

Yes, it is.

A different word is used. The sense is, made to appear; made visible.

...why were they not visible?
Also, I'm going to check this up on Blue Letter Bible...again...

Oh wait, your source is wrong

The statement reads as such (in Hebrew)

Genesis 1:16

'elohiym `asah shĕnayim gadowl ma'owr (and God) (made) (two) (great) (lights)

`asah is the word for 'made' in this passage and translates to:

) to do, fashion, accomplish, make
a) (Qal)
1) to do, work, make, produce
a) to do
b) to work
c) to deal (with)
d) to act, act with effect, effect
2) to make
a) to make
b) to produce
c) to prepare
d) to make (an offering)
e) to attend to, put in order
f) to observe, celebrate
g) to acquire (property)
h) to appoint, ordain, institute
i) to bring about
j) to use
k) to spend, pass
b) (Niphal)
1) to be done
2) to be made
3) to be produced
4) to be offered
5) to be observed
6) to be used
c) (Pual) to be made
2) (Piel) to press, squeeze

...not a single one of thsoe many definitions is to reveal

The sun and moon were created "in the beginning."

No, they weren't.

The "light" of course came from the sun, but the vapour diffused the light.

There is no mention of obscuring vapor in the Genesis account, this is just a roundabout way of not admitting you're wrong.

Later the sun appeared in an unclouded sky.

....the atmosphere cannot support having a globally cloudy sky...
And again, the verb is no 'to appear' or 'to reveal' it is 'to make'.

Of course the sun and moon were in outer space long before this first “day,” but their light did not reach the surface of the earth for an earthly observer to see. Now, light evidently came to be visible on earth on this first “day.”

...so...it was visible but there was so much cloudiness that you couldn't see it? Life wouldn't have been able to thrive in a world of universal cloudiness.

The light came in a gradual process, extending over a long period of time, not instantaneously as when you turn on an electric light bulb.

This doesn't fit in with established science, as at a certain point, when the sun reached nuclear fusion, it did come about quite quickly.

And the Bible clearly doesn't say anything about it being a gradual process.

The Genesis rendering by translator J. W. Watts reflects this when it says: “And gradually light came into existence.” (A Distinctive Translation of Genesis)

And that makes absolutely no sense in the original Hebrew.

This light was from the sun, but the sun itself could not be seen through the overcast. Hence, the light that reached earth was “light diffused.”

So the whole Earth was overcast? There's a word for that...when relating to a certain consequence of a certain type of war...Nuclear winter
We would be frozen by a perpetually cloudy sky all over the world.

Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night; and they must serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years. And they must serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth.’

Um...that makes absolutely no sense in the original Hebrew...am I going to have to get a Rabbinical scholar in here or do I have to learn the whole archaic tongue myself?

And it came to be so. And God proceeded to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars.”—Genesis 1:14-16; Psalm 136:7-9.

Emphasis mine.
To make. It even says it there. They aren't revealed, they are created.
Now, either you're going to keep arguing against your own Holy Book and trying to weasel out of what it actually says or you're going to admit that a semi-nomadic people living in the early Bronze age in the fertile crescent didn't know a damn thing about cosmology, biology, or chemistry.

Previously, on the first “day,” the expression “Let light come to be” was used. The Hebrew word there used for “light” is ’ohr, meaning light in a general sense. But on the fourth “day,” the Hebrew word changes to ma‧’ohr′, which means the source of the light.

Exactly, the light source is preceded by light.

Rotherham, in a footnote on “Luminaries” in the Emphasised Bible, says: “In ver. 3, ’ôr [’ohr], light diffused.”

Except...that is not a proper or anywhere near accurate definition of the term. He is wrong.

Then he goes on to show that the Hebrew word ma‧’ohr′ in verse 14 means something “affording light.”

Again, he is wrong.

On the first “day” diffused light evidently penetrated the swaddling bands, but the sources of that light could not have been seen by an earthly observer because of the cloud layers still enveloping the earth.

...so Earth was in something akin to nuclear winter for an undetermined period of time until the fourth "day"

Now, on this fourth “day,” things apparently changed.

And we unfroze then? Sorry, no evidence to support something like nuclear winter dominating the Earth for several epochs.

An atmosphere initially rich in carbon dioxide may have caused an earth-wide hot climate.

Not if the atmosphere was also rich enough in water to prevent the sun from being seen. It would have been insanely cold.

But the lush growth of vegetation during the third and fourth creative periods would absorb some of this heat-retaining blanket of carbon dioxide.

The lush growth that contradicts what we know about the development of life on the planet. You've yet to explain why the Bible contradicts everything we know about life. We know it started in the oceans.

And again, how was it to grow in the Biblical equivalent of nuclear winter

So the carbon dioxide is gone, but the dihydrogen monoxide is still present...

The vegetation, in turn, would release oxygen—a requirement for animal life.

Found in water, which was why marine life preceded animal life. And marine vegetation is still the biggest source of oxygen for the Earth.

Now, had there been an earthly observer, he would be able to discern the sun, moon and stars.

...how would a release of oxygen clear up a massive layer of water vapor so thick that and omnipresent that it makes it impossible for the sun to be visible?

That is my personal belief in detail on this account, you can say it's wrong,

Well, it's very wrong.

you can say the bible doesn't teach it,

It doesn't.

however I have adequately shown why I think it does.

No, it was very inadequate, you never explained what happened to the water in the atmosphere. There was a decrease in carbon dioxide and an increase in oxygen, but not a decrease in atmospheric water vapor.

You have also failed to explain how the Earth wouldn't be a frozen, lifeless ball due to effects similar to nuclear winter

So my belief is firm, and I am not wasting anymore time on this portion of the discussion.

Of course you're not going to waste time when you're so clearly wrong. I've pointed out massive gaping holes in your belief. You simply saying you're not going to waste anytime on it shows that you're so impenetrable to actual reason and evidence that you're blinded to it.

Your belief may be firm, but it is so very wrong.

As it is truly an exercise in pure futility.

Yes, I keep showing you that you are wrong and you keep repeating the same wrong stuff over and over again. It's getting quite futile for me.

The difference between you and me? I keep trying to demonstrate it. Not for your sake, but the sake of other people who are reading. Just so that they don't get swindled by your nonsense.