• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Seven Days

The Hebrew verb for “created” in Genesis 1:1 is in the perfect state, signifying completion. The creation was finished at this point.
Click to expand...

http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/Outreach/Edu/sform.html
"The infrared image shows stars and glowing interstellar dust heated by the intense starlight of the newborn stars."

...This is important when considering the verses that follow. The heavens had been created at this point, including the sun and moon and stars. The Hebrew verb has two states; the perfect state, which indicates completed action...
Click to expand...
Hebrew lessons aside... So they would be wrong about the universe if they used this term? New stars like our sun are still being formed. I'm just an amateur at this but this universe does not seem anything like a perfect state or completed action.
..., and the imperfect state which indicates action in progress, incompleteness. In Genesis 1:1, "created" in the Hebrew was the perfect state indicating completeness. The act of creating the heavens and the earth were complete.
Click to expand...
So as I'm following the argument - guessing about the way the universe is, they guessed wrong? I don't see how this is very convincing unless I reject what science tells us - that the universe is still in a process of creation.

The Biblical story teaches the universe was 'made' when is evidently is still being made. How is this not an instance where the Bible 'science' is simply incorrect?
 
Last edited:
(This is a general response to those who seem to be indicating that the bible refers to the 'universe' being created in Genesis.)

How does one come away with the impression that when the authors wrote 'heaven' in the creation myth, they actually meant 'universe'?

Gen 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

Heaven here is apparently from "shamayim" which the Blue Letter Bible indicates is (my bold);

(http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=H8064)
1) heaven, heavens, sky
a) visible heavens, sky
1) as abode of the stars
2) as the visible universe, the sky, atmosphere, etc

(Gesenius's Lexicon)
"...i.e. firmament which seems to be spread out like a vault over the globe, as supported on foundations and columns, whence the rain is let down as through doors or flood-gates and above which the abode of God and the angels was supposed to be,..."

Well that's just embarrassing, but moving on...

The same word for heaven in 1:1 is used some nine times (as in the passage "and to every fowl of the air" in Gen 1:30), to indicate where the fowl reside.
That's a pretty good indication that heaven in 1:1 isn't referring to the actual 'universe' in its entirety or anything close to it, but rather simply the 'sky' - or at best, the 'visible universe'.

The authors seem to make no distinction between our immediate 'heaven' - where say, the birds fly and weather occurs (troposphere) - and any other layer of atmosphere including that which contains the stars. That's a rather large oversight for those writing with divine authority.

Whichever definition one chooses to adhere to here, it falls incomprehensibly short of the hundreds of billions of galaxies we know to exist...so far. Even if one wishes to extend it to include the 'lesser and greater lights' and the stars, it is still just a tad shy of 'the universe'.

It is telling that the authors only managed to include what was visible to the naked eye when describing the creation, no? I see zero justification for assuming that they were referring to the 'universe' being created when they use 'heavens' in Genesis.
 
Dave: Here's another one for you. If Moses was the actual author of the Torah and lived either ca. 1450 or 1200 BCE, how do you explain the following anachronisms?

Genesis 11:28 and 31 say that Terah, father of Abraham, lived in "Ur of the Chaldeans." Yet, the Chaldeans didn't occupy Ur until ca. 800 BCE. Therefore, whoever wrote Gen. 11:28, 31 had to have lived no earlier than that time.

Genesis 14:14 says that Abraham pursued the kings of the east, who had taken Lot captive, as far as the city of Dan. Yet, according to Jud. 18:27 - 29. that city was called Laish until the Danites sacked it, slaughtered its population and renamed it Dan, after their eponymous ancestor. Since this had to have happened well after the death of Moses, how could Moses be the author of the Torah and still call the city "Dan" in Genesis?
 
"Am I correct in thinking that you support the idea that the Bible gives the creation account as taking place in a 144 hour period?

Here is the thing. Most scholars agree that Genesis 1:1, the creation of the heavens and the earth is, as I stated, complete, an indeterminate time before the first creative "day" began. The word day is used in the brief creation account in 3 different ways, including all six "days" as one "day." "
Click to expand...

Most scholar I read says that genesis is an allegory, a myth, and it is perfectly clear from the context it was not meant to be literal. And while some agree that "day" could be interpreted as eon, all those I read agree that it is actually meant to be "day" as in 24h, and there is no hidden meaning other than jsut a plain story of creation.

SO..... Next.
 
Last edited:
Here's another anachronism for you, Dave. Genesis 36:31 says:

There were kings who reigned in the land of Edom, before any king reigned over the Israelites.

Since, according to the biblical chronology, Moses died before the Israelites even occupied Canaan, he couldn't have known of kings reigning over the Israelites. Therefore' this verse couldn't have been written by him.

Along with the earlier verses I quoted, we know that Genesis (or rather the documents that were eventually merged into Genesis) had to have been written after the Danites sacked Laish and renamed it Dan (ca. 1100 BCE), after there had been at least one king in Israel (at earliest ca. 1000 BCE) and after the Chaldeans had occupied Ur (ca. 800 BCE).

Do you have a response to any of this?
 
Elizabeth I said:
I think David Wossname took his marbles and went home a month or so ago...
Click to expand...

So it would seem. Once again, having kicked the ant hill, Dave seems to
have run away. I'm really baffled by this sort of behavior. He only proves by it that his arguments lack substance.
 
TimCallahan said:
So it would seem. Once again, having kicked the ant hill, Dave seems to
have run away. I'm really baffled by this sort of behavior. He only proves by it that his arguments lack substance.
Click to expand...

Not neccesarily, he may have simply been institutionalised
;)
 
Marduk said:
Not neccesarily, he may have simply been institutionalised
;)
Click to expand...

So, are you saying we get bursts of activity from Dave once the brain scrambling effects of electroshock have worn off, and then he goes away for a while after his next jolt?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom