Intelligent Design support letter to the editor

[bokonon]

Yes, I have come accross that scripture before many years ago. Below I provide a link to a web-page that provides an explanation.

Excerpt:

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

Some people read verses such as this and claim that it means God creates sin. But their problem is in their knowledge and understanding of the word evil. They erroneously surmise that evil always means sin, but that is not the case. The word translated evil in scripture does not "necessarily" mean evil in the same sense that we understand evil in our day. We use the word evil today as a synonym for sin or wickedness, but that is not the case in scripture. The word translated evil is the Hebrew word [ra'], meaning something that is "not good." It is from a root word meaning to be spoiled, and by implication something that is not good. i.e., bad. It does not mean evil in the sense that we might think of the word today, but more correctly understood as bad or anything that is "not good" to us. For example, if a child receives a spanking, or we go through some adversity or anything which we deem not good for us, it is [ra'] or evil. e.g.:

http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/faq/create_evil.html

It seems to me that this fails to refute the assertion that God created ebola. Ebola is not sin, it is something that is "not good" to us. Hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, killer asteroids, Alzheimers, and cockroaches are also not sin. Looks to me like anybody claiming their perfect sky daddy created rainbows but not roaches is on pretty shaky ground vis a vis scripture.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

To the OP: Organisms that look designed

Really rubs it in.

 

[Radrook]

Really so on God's day of rest he:

Flooded the earth killing all creatures except those on the Ark,
Punished the inhabitants of Babel for wanting to be closer to him thus sowing the seeds for millennia of poor communication and discord.
Destroyed the towns of Soddom and Gomorrah turning Lot's wife into a Pillar of salt as he did so.
Caused the hundred year old Abraham to bear a son Issac.
Appeared to Moses as a burning bush
Changed Aarons Rod into a Serpant
Inflicted the plagues of Egypt
Divided the Red Sea, sending it crashing back to drown Pharroh's army.
Cared for the wanderers in the desrt for 40 years by sending them manna, sending water to them where Moses struck a rock with his staff (twice) and sweetening the water at Marah.
Issued the ten commandments... twice. The second one apparently with copy errors.
Consumed Nadab and Abihu with fire not to mention the people at Tabirah and Korah and Kadesh.
Made Arron's Rod bud.
Animated the brazen serpent
Caused Balaam Ass to speak
Divided the river Jordan
Toppled the walls of Jerico
Stayed the sun and the moon for Joshua and sent him a hailstorm
Immolated various folk for looking at ot touching the arc of the covenant.
Blinded and cured the Syrians
Raised the dead a couple of times.
Persecuted Jonah - on a bet.

It certainly doesn't sound restfull to me.

I could go on with more Old testament Death and destruction but lets skip forward to impregnating a virgin without prior consent cos I just love that one.

Anyway here's a big old list - http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/miracle.html

If he did all this on his one day of rest then tell me why didn't he send manna on the sabbath?

He is resting from the type of activitiy he had been engaged in during the prior six creative days. You know, the same way that you don't do the same type of activty on Sundays that you do on your working days.

 

[Radrook]

I'm quite sure this isn't true, but I don't have the cites right now to back myself up.

Here is a website that will help you garner various translations of Genesis.

http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword...rchtype=all&version1=9&spanbegin=1&spanend=73

The difference being, science doesn't claim to be infallible.

Ok.

Make up your mind! Of course science has benefited mankind. Polio vaccines, expanded communication, transportation, etc. The case of benefit/evil is not black and white. Just because some scientific principles are used for evil does not mean science is not beneficial, and vice versa.

I did not say science is completely harmful. My main poiint is that it can't be used to prove the non-existence of anything beyond its range. Unfortunately, the vast majority of existing things are beyond its range. So it is unscientific to claim that science can do more than it is able to do.

 

[Ocelot]

He is resting from the type of activitiy he had been engaged in during the prior six creative days. You know, the same way that you don't do the same type of activty on Sundays that you do on your working days.

So why didn't he send manna on the Sabbath?

 

[DrBaltar]

As for total freedom, strange that you should take umbrage since total freedom leads to anarchy and I am 100% sure that you would no want your government to allow that kind of freedom to its citizens since you would be victimized. Common sense.

Nor would I want a government that would apply strict sanctions for the entire nation because a couple of its citizens jay-walked. This is effectively what god has done.

God can view a day in different durations not just 24 hours. That's why Adam died after living some 900 years.

God can view a day however he wants. But if the bible isn't written in terms we understand then it is not clear to us. We shouldn't have to wait until the new testament for a glossary. Anyway, if a day is 1000 years, then 6,000 years still does not match the time scale shown by geologic and fossil record as the time it took to create the earth and all the animals up through homosapiens.

BTW

Science is full of horrendous bloopers.It is also restricted by the human senses to this dimension and even here we are limited by distances and time. So I wouldn't bet it all on science. There is far more that svcience doesn't know that what it does know that vast ignorance should be sufficient to discourage the conclusiveness of saying there is no God.

Science may have occasional mistakes, but there is a process where these mistakes are found and corrected.

Mankind has been basically stuck for over a millennia because of religious dogma, culminating in the dark ages. Since science has come to the rescue we have been advancing our knowledge and quality of life by a fantastic rate.

That's a strawman since I am not debating against science.

I went ahead and put the thread of quotes showing why I commented on science, starting with you saying "Science is full of horrendous bloopers." You did start bashing science and I responded to it.

Of course science has its benefits. But to say that we know things in realms where science hasn't penetrated is unjustified. For example, we can say that based only on what we see in this part of the VISIBLE or DETECTABLE universe gravity exists and behaves in such and such a way. However, if we presumptuously extrapolate into the whole realm of existence, then we are being unscientific since our science is based on the characteristics of this dimension and this little part of the universe. Actually, even in this dimension the major portion of our universe has receded beyond detectability. So even here we are limited.

It's been only a couple of decades since science has detected dark matter, and even shorter since science has detected 'dark energy'. Give us time to figure it out... geez. It's not like we can meditate and come up with the answer. If science is unable to detect anything supernatural then how do religious people sense it? How is it that many people feel a connection to God? They are made up of physical matter. Couldn't scientists construct some type of biological machine that could mimic whatever it is that humans have that can detect the presence of God?

As far as science benefiting mankind, that is debatable since we are still slaughtering one another like savages. Proving that the original lie was a lie since we can't do things on our own without making fools of ourselves.

Oh, and back during the dark ages when the concept of science was alien and religion took over every aspect of their lives there was no savage slaughtering.

The reason we are granted life is so we can make a choice as Adam and Eve had an opportunity to choose and not have to permanently suffer the consequence of their decision.

About those who died in the past-that's why God provided the resurrection.

Acts 24:15
And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.



BTW
Not all those who died in the flood were humans. Genetic contamination had taken place. So when I say ressurection, it applies only to those humans who might have perished.

Ok enough of this Noah's Ark nonsense. Lets get some facts now. Myths usually have some element of truth. During the last ice age a significant percentage of the Earth's water was in the form of glaciers and snow on land. The sea levels were lower. The Black Sea was a lake 90m below sea level. 8000 years ago when the ice age was ending, the ice melted and the sea levels rose. You do the math.

In 1997 geologists William Ryan and Walter Pitman of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University in Palisades, New York, revealed with the help of sonar maps that the Black Sea passed from being an isolated freshwater lake into an inner sea at the end of the Ice Age, when the Mediterranean Sea surged over a strip of land called the Bosporus sill, which kept apart the two seas.

Sonar maps revealed the ancient shorelines covered by mud at 295 to 328 ft (90 to 100 m) under the surface of modern Black Sea. Perfectly preserved dunes pointed to a rapid submergence and preserved freshwater and marine shells tell the same story.

The new research, published in the journal Quaternary Science Reviews, focused on the age of the youngest freshwater shells and the oldest marine shells come from mud samples, pointing that the transition from fresh water to sea water occurred 8,300
years ago.

"That's the same time [that] there was a big catastrophic release of fresh water from North America," said co-author Chris Turney of the University of Exeter in the United Kingdom.

12,000 years ago, at the end of the Ice Age, the huge Laurentide ice sheet covering most of North America started to melt forming an enormous lake, which burst into the North Atlantic Ocean in a rapid event, rising the world's sea level by about 4.92 ft (1.5 m) about 8,100 to 8,500 years ago.

"It looks like it was the straw that broke the camel's back. It was enough to get the Mediterranean over into the Black Sea. Our age [for the Black Sea flood] fits in very nicely, bang in the middle." said Turney.

But the ancient Black Sea was already 90 m below the sea level and the flood was enormous.

 

[Radrook]

So why didn't he send manna on the Sabbath?

I don't understand your question.

 

[Radrook]

Nor would I want a government that would apply strict sanctions for the entire nation because a couple of its citizens jaywalked. This is effectively what god has done.

That's a false analogy.

God can view a day however he wants. But if the bible isn't written in terms we understand then it is not clear to us. We shouldn't have to wait until the new testament for a glossary.

God is a God of gradual revelation in accordance with his infinite wisdom.

BTW

The Old Testament speaks of God viewing days as being longer than 24 hours.

Anyway, if a day is 1000 years, then 6,000 years still does not match the time scale shown by geologic and fossil record as the time it took to create the earth and all the animals up through homosapiens.

You are missing the point. When Chrstians were told they could enter God's rest much more than a thousand years had elapsed and still God's rest day was in progress.

I went ahead and put the thread of quotes showing why I commented on science, starting with you saying "Science is full of horrendous bloopers." You did start bashing science and I responded to it.

Sorry you see anything I might say about science as a bashing campaign.

It's been only a couple of decades since science has detected dark matter, and even shorter since science has detected 'dark energy'. Give us time to figure it out... geez. It's not like we can meditate and come up with the answer.

I'm not against science. I'm against quackery trying to pass as science.

If science is unable to detect anything supernatural then how do religious people sense it? How is it that many people feel a connection to God? They are made up of physical matter.

How is it that scientists sense the existence of dark matter when they themselves aren't made of dark matter?

Couldn't scientists construct some type of biological machine that could mimic whatever it is that humans have that can detect the presence of God?

Of course.

Oh, and back during the dark ages when the concept of science was alien and religion took over every aspect of their lives there was no savage slaughtering.

Savage slaughterings are the results of mankind seeking to wing it on their own. You know, deciding what is evil and what is good according to how it fits their fancy.

Ok enough of this Noah's Ark nonsense. Lets get some facts now. Myths usually have some element of truth....

I agree with Jesus and his Apostles who considered the Flood not nonsense, as you do, but as an historical fact.


Luke 17:27
They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.

So did the Apostle Paul
Hebrews 11:7
By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

So did the Apostle Peter whom Catholics say was the first Pope.

2 Peter 2:5
And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

BTW
You object to having your precious science belittled but you are quite willing ready and able to belittle other people's beliefs.

 

[joobz]

God is a God of gradual revelation in accordance with his infinite wisdom.

Prove it.

I'm not against science. I'm against quackery trying to pass as science.

I am as well, let's make a list of such quakery:
I'll start:
Homeopathy
Intelligent Design
Law of Attraction
Scientology

Savage slaughterings are the results of mankind seeking to wing it on their own.
You know, deciding what is evil and what is good according to how it fits their fancy,

The bible seems to disagree with you. God likes a good slaughtering.

And at midnight the LORD killed all the firstborn sons in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn son of the captive in the dungeon. Even the firstborn of their livestock were killed. Pharaoh and his officials and all the people of Egypt woke up during the night, and loud wailing was heard throughout the land of Egypt. There was not a single house where someone had not died. (Exodus 12:29-30)

If even then you remain hostile toward me and refuse to obey, I will inflict you with seven more disasters for your sins. I will release wild animals that will kill your children and destroy your cattle, so your numbers will dwindle and your roads will be deserted. (Leviticus 26:21-22)

This is what the Lord of hosts has to say: 'I will punish what Amalek did to Israel when he barred his way as he was coming up from Egypt. Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban. Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.' (1 Samuel 15:2-3)
I will make Mount Seir utterly desolate, killing off all who try to escape and any who return. I will fill your mountains with the dead. Your hills, your valleys, and your streams will be filled with people slaughtered by the sword. I will make you desolate forever. Your cities will never be rebuilt. Then you will know that I am the LORD. (Ezekiel 35:7-9)

I agree with Jesus and his Apostles who considered the Flood not nonsense, as you do, but as an historical fact.

Based upon what facts?

You object to having your precious science belittled but you are quite willing ready and able to belittle other people's beliefs.

Science isn't belief but tested evidentiary fact.
What would permit you to make such a logical error?

 

[DrBaltar]

You are missing the point. When Chrstians were told they could enter God's rest much more than a thousand years had elapsed and still God's rest day was in progress.

I'm not talking about the 'rest' period after the creation. I'm talking about the time it took to create (i.e. on the first day... on the 2nd day... etc), which is 6 thousand years if we substitute millennia for days in the interest of clarity. The things that Genesis says happened over 6000 years actually took 4.5 billion years.

How is it that scientists sense the existence of dark matter when they themselves aren't made of dark matter?

You broke up what I said in a way that doesn't make as much sense. This should have been a separate quote:

They are made up of physical matter. Couldn't scientists construct some type of biological machine that could mimic whatever it is that humans have that can detect the presence of God?

Savage slaughterings are the results of mankind seeking to wing it on their own. You know, deciding what is evil and what is good according to how it fits their fancy.

Savage slaughterings also seem to be the result of God's 'infinite wisdom'. You know, deciding what is evil and what is good according to how it fits his fancy. Joobz provides plenty of good examples above.

I agree with Jesus and his Apostles who considered the Flood not nonsense, as you do, but as an historical fact.

Did you read what I quoted about what the researchers William Ryan and Walter Pitman found? You are aware there was an ice age right, and that the sea levels were lower. In the Black Sea they found an ancient shoreline as well as evidence that it transitioned from a freshwater lake to saltwater 8300 years ago. Why do you ignore all these facts and evidence?

BTW
You object to having your precious science belittled but you are quite willing ready and able to belittle other people's beliefs.

Go ahead and belittle science. But I have the right to defend it just as you have the right to defend your beliefs. Science can stand up to scrutiny. Can your religion?

 

[Radrook]

I'm not talking about the 'rest' period after the creation. I'm talking about the time it took to create (i.e. on the first day... on the 2nd day... etc), which is 6 thousand years if we substitute millennia for days in the interest of clarity. The things that Genesis says happened over 6000 years actually took 4.5 billion years.

You broke up what I said in a way that doesn't make as much sense. This should have been a separate quote:

Days are uniform in duration. If the rest day is longer than 1000 then the six had to be longer as well.

Savage slaughterings also seem to be the result of God's 'infinite wisdom'. You know, deciding what is evil and what is good according to how it fits his fancy. Joobz provides plenty of good examples above.

From what you and they consider God's infinite wisdom.

Did you read what I quoted about what the researchers William Ryan and Walter Pitman found? You are aware there was an ice age right, and that the sea levels were lower. In the Black Sea they found an ancient shoreline as well as evidence that it transitioned from a freshwater lake to saltwater 8300 years ago. Why do you ignore all these facts and evidence?

There were geological events taking place before the first day.
That period accomodates the time period you mention.

Genesis 1
1:In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.....

Go ahead and belittle science. But I have the right to defend it just as you have the right to defend your beliefs. Science can stand up to scrutiny. Can your religion?

I don't belittle science. I belittle the misuse of science and the glorification of sciernce into a veritable god.

BTW
My beliefs are beyond that particular vulnerability that you imagine them to be.

 

[joobz]

From what you and they consider God's infinite wisdom.

non-responsive.

I don't belittle science. I belittle the misuse of science and the glorification of sciernce into a veritable god.

I think no one here would disagree with your choice to belittle the missuse of science or the turning it into a dogmatic system.(What I assume you mean by veritable god).

 

[DrBaltar]

Days are uniform in duration. If the rest day is longer than 1000 then the six had to be longer as well.

Oh what tangled webs we weave... Ok, so be it. 6 'days' from the creation of heaven and the earth until the creation of man. The earth is 4.6 billion years old, so subtract 40,000 years (about how long we've been around) and 6 days = 4,599,960,000 years. Divide by 6 and a 'day' is 766,660,000 years. (Funny how Gen 1:14 distinguishes days from years by saying: "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years", but if you insist...)

Time for a timeline:
4.6B - 3.8Bya: The earth was formed with an ocean, day/night established
3.8B - 3.1Bya: Atmosphere and heaven were created
3.1B - 2.3Bya: Continents, grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree
2.3B - 1.5Bya: Stars, Sun and Moon created
1.5B - 766Mya: Sea and sky animals created
766M - 40Tya: Land animals, homosapiens
40Tya - 766Million years from now: God is resting.

Do I need to refute the timing of these events or is it obviously wrong to you?

Did you read what I quoted about what the researchers William Ryan and Walter Pitman found? You are aware there was an ice age right, and that the sea levels were lower. In the Black Sea they found an ancient shoreline as well as evidence that it transitioned from a freshwater lake to saltwater 8300 years ago. Why do you ignore all these facts and evidence?

There were geogical events taking place before the first day.

Genesis 1
1:In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Actually William Ryan and Walter Pitman were talking about evidence for the ice age ending and causing a flood for the inhabitants around the Black Sea/Lake and how that's what actually happened instead of the global flood in the story of Noah. From your reply I take it you didn't read it. Try reading it this time:

In 1997 geologists William Ryan and Walter Pitman of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University in Palisades, New York, revealed with the help of sonar maps that the Black Sea passed from being an isolated freshwater lake into an inner sea at the end of the Ice Age, when the Mediterranean Sea surged over a strip of land called the Bosporus sill, which kept apart the two seas.

Sonar maps revealed the ancient shorelines covered by mud at 295 to 328 ft (90 to 100 m) under the surface of modern Black Sea. Perfectly preserved dunes pointed to a rapid submergence and preserved freshwater and marine shells tell the same story.

The new research, published in the journal Quaternary Science Reviews, focused on the age of the youngest freshwater shells and the oldest marine shells come from mud samples, pointing that the transition from fresh water to sea water occurred 8,300
years ago.

"That's the same time [that] there was a big catastrophic release of fresh water from North America," said co-author Chris Turney of the University of Exeter in the United Kingdom.

12,000 years ago, at the end of the Ice Age, the huge Laurentide ice sheet covering most of North America started to melt forming an enormous lake, which burst into the North Atlantic Ocean in a rapid event, rising the world's sea level by about 4.92 ft (1.5 m) about 8,100 to 8,500 years ago.

"It looks like it was the straw that broke the camel's back. It was enough to get the Mediterranean over into the Black Sea. Our age [for the Black Sea flood] fits in very nicely, bang in the middle." said Turney.

But the ancient Black Sea was already 90 m below the sea level and the flood was enormous.

I don't belittle science. I belittle the misuse of science and the glorification of sciernce into a veritable god.

Hey me too!

 

[Radrook]

Oh what tangled webs we weave... Ok, so be it. 6 'days' from the creation of heaven and the earth until the creation of man. The earth is 4.6 billion years old, so subtract 40,000 years (about how long we've been around) and 6 days = 4,599,960,000 years. Divide by 6 and a 'day' is 766,660,000 years.

The creation of the heavens and earth are not included in the creative week. They are said to have occurred in Genesis 1 PRIOR to the beginning of the creative earth preparatory week. The creative week begins with the statement" Let there be light!" Of course since the universe had already been created light already existed. So the statement concerning light has to be understood as applicable to the earth. The existence of an obscuring dust cloud could account for this.

(Funny how Gen 1:14 distinguishes days from years by saying: "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years", but if you insist...)

Context: God is speaking about how mankind will perceive things.
So the days described that way are in relation to mankind, not in relation to himself.

Time for a timeline:
4.6B - 3.8Bya: The earth was formed with an ocean, day/night established
3.8B - 3.1Bya: Atmosphere and heaven were created
3.1B - 2.3Bya: Continents, grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree
2.3B - 1.5Bya: Stars, Sun and Moon created
1.5B - 766Mya: Sea and sky animals created
766M - 40Tya: Land animals, homosapiens
40Tya - 766Million years from now: God is resting.

Obviously Genesis 1 describes the creation of the universe prior to these descriptions. Creation of the universe obviously includes stars and galaxies and our sun.

The darkness on earth's surface mention in Genesis 1 could have been due to an opaque atmosphere which needed to be make translucent. Actually, the Bible tells us that a cloud was associated with that darkness.

"I made a cloud its garment, and thick darkness its swaddling band" (Job 38:4-9)

When this swaddling band was finally made transparent, the heavenly bodies such as stars moon and sun, were made to become visible from earth's surface.

BTW

I disagree with the Hebrew word (ASAH) translated as "created " since it goes contrary to the context. Since it can also convey the sense of "made" "fashion" or "worked" the following translations are far more accurate. were made to appear. or "He worked on" or "He fashioned"

Do I need to refute the timing of these events or is it obviously wrong to you?

No need to since I didn't say that each day was as long as you are assuming I said. Some say that each day is 6000 years long. Me? I remain neutral as far as the exact time duration though I know it was more than a mere 24 hour day due to the duration of the sixth rest day which is still in progress. Actually, the rest day had passed the 1000 year mark shortly after the death of Adam.

Actually William Ryan and Walter Pitman were talking about evidence for the ice age ending and causing a flood for the inhabitants around the Black Sea/Lake and how that's what actually happened instead of the global flood in the story of Noah. From your reply I take it you didn't read it. Try reading it this time:

I have had their book for about ten years now and have read it. I regularly read parts of it now and then.

Hey me too!

Good!

BTW

"Oh what tangled webs we weave..."

Why do you assume that I am trying to deceive you?

 

[articulett]

God cannot be questioned... he's invisible and indistinguishable from all other gods humans have created...

Science is all about questioning... it has an error correcting mechanism, and it's true whether you believe it or not... No one expects you to have faith... they'll show you how we know the earth is a sphere and not the center of the universe and that when the sun rises, it's really an illusion caused by our planet orbiting towards the sun...

That's the same information for everyone and it's a little cleared than "god said let there be light..." DNA was in our body even though your invisible science teacher didn't think to mention it...

 

[six7s]

I did not say science is completely harmful. My main poiint is that it can't be used to prove the non-existence of anything beyond its range. Unfortunately, the vast majority of existing things are beyond its range.

Please identify three or four such 'existing things' that are beyond the range of science

 

[DrBaltar]

The creation of the heavens and earth are not included in the creative week. They are said to have occurred in Genesis 1 PRIOR to the beginning of the creative earth preparatory week. The creative week begins with the statement" Let there be light!"

If anything in Genesis is clear, it seems clear that Gen 1:1-5 occurred on the first 'day', and everything after from the end of one day to the mention of the next 'day' occurred on that next 'day'. If not you are again demonstrating how unclear the bible is.

Context: God is speaking about how mankind will perceive things. So the days described that way are in relation to mankind, not in relation to himself.

Why use days as mankind understand days in parts of it, and not in other parts? Just admit it, it's unclear.

Obviously Genesis 1 describes the creation of the universe prior to these descriptions. Creation of the universe obviously includes stars and galaxies and our sun.

Not obvious to me. It says in the beginning god created the heaven and the earth. To me, heaven doesn't mean universe. If we sent a space probe close to the speed of light on a course across the universe, no one would claim the spacecraft is going through heaven.

When this swaddling band was finally made transparent, the heavenly bodies such as stars moon and sun, were made to become visible from earth's surface.

BTW

I disagree with the Hebrew word (ASAH) translated as "created " since it goes contrary to the context. Since it can also convey the sense of "made" "fashion" or "worked" the following translations are far more accurate. were made to appear. or "He worked on" or "He fashioned"

How would you edit genesis so that it is correct, and clear?

No need to since I didn't say that each day was as long as you are assuming I said. Some say that each day is 6000 years long. Me? I remain neutral as far as the exact time duration though I know it was more than a mere 24 hour day due to the duration of the sixth rest day which is still in progress. Actually, the rest day had passed the 1000 year mark shortly after the death of Adam.

You said 'days' are uniform in duration. I asked you before how old you thought the earth is. You said as old as science says it is. Scientists find that the earth is 4.6 billion years old. Scientists also find that homosapiens came along about 40,000 years ago. Based on your 2 comments that days are uniform duration and that genesis says from the time earth was created to the time mankind was created was 6 days. As I said above: The earth is 4.6 billion years old (according to the science you accept), so subtract 40,000 years (about how long we've been around) and 6 days = 4,599,960,000 years. Divide by 6 (because, as you say, 'days' are of uniform length) and a 'day' is 766,660,000 years. Have I made a mistake in my math somewhere?

I have had their book for about ten years now and have read it. I regularly read parts of it now and then.

So, for the third time, what do you think of their claims that the flood was actually the rising ocean from the melting glaciers that poured into the Black Sea/Lake?

Why do you assume that I am trying to deceive you?

I don't think you're deliberately deceiving me. I think you're fumbling around with your explainations and trying to modify them to make them work when the faults are shown as I take you literally. When we first started talking about the length of 'days' you gave references inferring that a 'day' meant 1000 years. Then when pressed, you backtracked and said "Days are uniform in duration. If the rest day is longer than 1000 then the six had to be longer as well."

Again, so we're all on the same page, just please edit Genesis so I, and others, can see what it's actually saying.

 

[Radrook]

Please identify three or four such 'existing things' that are beyond the range of science

I suspect that what you mean by "beyond the range of science" is different from what I mean by "beyond the range of science".

 

[bokonon]

The creation of the heavens and earth are not included in the creative week. They are said to have occurred in Genesis 1 PRIOR to the beginning of the creative earth preparatory week. The creative week begins with the statement" Let there be light!" Of course since the universe had already been created light already existed. So the statement concerning light has to be understood as applicable to the earth. The existence of an obscuring dust cloud could account for this.

I have a feeling that even your decision to place "in the beginning" as the beginning of the earth rather than the beginning of the universe will not reconcile Genesis with either scientific facts or common sense, but let's run with it and see, shall we?

Time for a timeline:
4.6B - 3.8Bya: The earth was formed with an ocean, day/night established
3.8B - 3.1Bya: Atmosphere and heaven were created
3.1B - 2.3Bya: Continents, grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree
2.3B - 1.5Bya: Stars, Sun and Moon created
1.5B - 766Mya: Sea and sky animals created
766M - 40Tya: Land animals, homosapiens
40Tya - 766Million years from now: God is resting.

Obviously Genesis 1 describes the creation of the universe prior to these descriptions. Creation of the universe obviously includes stars and galaxies and our sun.

And yet, Genesis 1:14-19 clearly states:

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from thenight; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Stars, moon, and sun were, according to Genesis, created on the fourth day of the creation week, which is right where DrBaltar placed them. Either you're wrong, or Genesis is wrong. You can't both be right. You can both be wrong, and if I was a betting man, that's where I'd put my money.

Obviously, the Genesis account which has grass and fruit trees growing on day 3, but doesn't provide sunlight for them until day 4, might work if we were speaking of 24-hour days. Million-year days without sunlight raises some difficult survival problems for plants which depend on photosynthesis.

The darkness on earth's surface mention in Genesis 1 could have been due to an opaque atmosphere which needed to be make translucent. Actually, the Bible tells us that a cloud was associated with that darkness.

"I made a cloud its garment, and thick darkness its swaddling band" (Job 38:4-9)

When this swaddling band was finally made transparent, the heavenly bodies such as stars moon and sun, were made to become visible from earth's surface.

What hand-waving nonsense. The verses you cite from Job don't say anywhere that the "swaddling band" was made transparent. On top of that, they are clearly talking about the sea, not the earth:

8 Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?
9 When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it,
10 And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors,
11 And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here hall thy proud waves be stayed?

Getting back to Genesis, it tells us that there is a flaming sword which prevents man from re-entering the garden of Eden (Genesis 3:24). Where should I point Google Earth to get a look at that sucker?

 

[Radrook]

If anything in Genesis is clear, it seems clear that Gen 1:1-5 occurred on the first 'day', and everything after from the end of one day to the mention of the next 'day' occurred on that next 'day'. If not you are again demonstrating how unclear the bible is.

It is very clear to me and other millions who understand it exactly the way I do.

Why use days as mankind understand days in parts of it, and not in other parts? Just admit it, it's unclear.

Because the context demands that we understand it that way.

Not obvious to me. It says in the beginning god created the heaven and the earth. To me, heaven doesn't mean universe. If we sent a space probe close to the speed of light on a course across the universe, no one would claim the spacecraft is going through heaven.

You are thinking in English while the Bible was written in Hebrew and Hebrew, as any other foreign language, has its nuances. Furthermore, It's not what it means to us personally that's important, it's what meaning the author indended it to have. We know the meaning based on context. You see, the Bible is clear that the heaven where he and the angels reside was in existence prior to our universe' creation. So it could not have been that heaven that God was referring to. Neither could it have been the firmanent since thaty's part of our atmosphere and is part of the earth itself.

Notice that the word "heaven' is imediately followed by the word "earth" The only creation immediately preceding the earth was the material universe itself. The universe, in turn was preceded by the spiritual heaven where God and his angels reside.

Actually,there is nothing cryptic about the word.

Psalm 8:2-4
3When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained....

Isaiah 13:10
For the stars of heaven and the constellations ....

Mark 13:25
And the stars of heaven....

Revelation 6:13
And the stars of heaven....

How would you edit genesis so that it is correct, and clear?

I find it correct and clear as it stands.

You said 'days' are uniform in duration. I asked you before how old you thought the earth is. You said as old as science says it is. Scientists find that the earth is 4.6 billion years old. Scientists also find that homosapiens came along about 40,000 years ago. Based on your 2 comments that days are uniform duration and that genesis says from the time earth was created to the time mankind was created was 6 days.

From the time he said "Let there be light!" until the creation of Eve were the six days of preparing the earth for human habitation.

As I said above: The earth is 4.6 billion years old (according to the science you accept), so subtract 40,000 years (about how long we've been around) and 6 days = 4,599,960,000 years. Divide by 6 (because, as you say, 'days' are of uniform length) and a 'day' is 766,660,000 years. Have I made a mistake in my math somewhere?

Only in assuming that I am counting Genesis 1 and 2 where the earth is said to be void and covered in water as being part of the first day.

So, for the third time, what do you think of their claims that the flood was actually the rising ocean from the melting glaciers that poured into the Black Sea/Lake?

I was unaware that you had asked me about this three times. In any case, as I previously mentioned. Jesus himself considered the flood to have been just as Genesis described it. So if I have to choose between what these two individuals claim and what Jesus himself believed and taught-I will side with Jesus.

I don't think you're deliberately deceiving me. I think you're fumbling around with your explanations and trying to modify them to make them work when the faults are shown as I take you literally. When we first started talking about the length of 'days' you gave references inferring that a 'day' meant 1000 years. Then when pressed, you backtracked and said "Days are uniform in duration. If the rest day is longer than 1000 then the six had to be longer as well."

What I said was that God can view a day as more than simply twenty-four hours. Then I gave scriptures which mention that he can consider 1000 years as one day as he chose to do in the case of Adam and Eve. I also said that the rest day was spoken of as still being in progress during the time of the Apostles indicating that the rest day was much longer than 1000 years. Sorry about the misunderstanding and the impression that I am backtracking.

Again, so we're all on the same page, just please edit Genesis so I, and others, can see what it's actually saying.

If I found a book as difficult to understand as you describe I would simply choose not to read it. Make sense?