It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Resolving "Birds Before Land Animals"

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 01:06 PM
link   
I am a scientist. Granted, my field of education and research was atmospheric in nature, I do subscribe to most solid theories about the origins of our universe and mankind. I consider myself a non-denominational christian and believe in a God. I've studied, in depth, 6 major religions for extended periods of time.

I have found I can resolve with science the entire creation account in genesis if the days of creation are not literal days. Plenty of evidence points to the fact that this is the case and I have outlined that in previous posts/threads.

The one problem I come across is Birds Before Land Animals...

So I went to an old professor of theology who is like minded and he immediately had an answer for me which I had never even considered, and some facts I missed or glossed over in my reading of Genesis.

First off, in Genesis 1:20 there actually seems to be a mistranslation.

See the direct translation:

www.blueletterbible.org...


flying creatures, fowl, insects, birds


So it can be defined as "Insects". Apparently the context of the use of the word mattered much in determining which it indicated, however Genesis 1:20 doesn't give much context, so almost every translator to English either translated it as Flying Creature, Fowl or Bird. None of them translated it as insect.

A commentary from one theologian states:

biblehub.com...


This may be due to mans recognition of insects as minuscule and unimportant or even irritating. However, this could be the mention of their creation indicating that even the smallest of creatures are important to the creator and the world upon which they were placed.


How do they come to this conclusion? For one, it specifically says these creatures were made from the waters, and on the 5th day of creation. However let's look at the 6th day of creation:


19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky.


At this time, the same word is used, however this time they are created from the earth. This seems to indicate this is a completely separate creation of winged creatures. These were created on the 6th day along with land animals, and potentially after them if you take the order of their mention into the equation.

So it is very probable that the flying creatures from Genesis 1:20 are insects, and birds come later as outlined in Genesis 2:19.

See the evolutionary timeline:

en.wikipedia.org...


for the last 500 million years, fish and proto-amphibians;
for the last 475 million years, land plants;
for the last 400 million years, insects and seeds;


As you can see this fits within the evolutionary timeline.

My belief is that the bible has an accurate story. It may not contain scientific details, but I think the confusion comes from man, not the other way around.
edit on 14-8-2014 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Trying to reconcile Genesis with reality will always prove to be problematic.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

I agree. However like I said, I can only reconcile for myself personally. That's the crux of it.

I just thought others might be interested in this, as I've studied the bible, as well as other religious texts, for a couple decades now and I completely missed this.

Most of my reconciliation didn't happen until I left those who speak behind pulpits and just read and studied on my own, without agenda's of organized religions being involved.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 01:22 PM
link   
"All the wild animals and all the birds in the sky" should be read as an all-encompassing euphemism. It is the entirety of fauna, insects included.

Trying to reconcile this with reality though can be problematic. I don't agree with the latter "scientific creationists" who need to convert each day of Biblical Creation into some epoch or period of millions (or billions) of years. If you're a Bible believer, then the earth and the universe was created in six days. Six earth days. Period. That is exactly what they wrote. Otherwise you are picking and choosing what you want to accept, or interpreting it according to your own whims.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 01:25 PM
link   
OP, you are talking about the bible here. You can make it say whatever you want it to say by saying "such and such is a metaphor" or "this really means that" or "this was poorly translated and means this". I've seen all these tricks employed to make the bible say literally ANYTHING. So if you are worried about the bible lining up to whatever you believe, just do a few mental gymnastics with the book and you'll be fine.
edit on 14-8-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
* I am a scientist.

* I consider myself a non-denominational christian and believe in a God.

* I have found I can resolve with science the entire creation account in genesis if the days of creation are not literal days.

* Plenty of evidence points to the fact that this is the case and I have outlined that in previous posts/threads.



This just does not make much sense to me... Either you scientist and you know that Genesis is fairy tale, like all other religions, especially if you studied more then one, or you are believer, creationist, witch automatically means that you have to have made up mind about what science will find or has found already.

While you at it, can you explain 2 lights that God created. Either rest of stars are not lights, and moon all of the sudden become source of light, or whoever wrote this non-sense had no idea of cosmology and planets/stars etc.

* In last bold part, what are you talking about - what evidence?

Thanks,

SF
edit on 14-8-2014 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

The bible refers to days several times when in fact it is referring to an extended period of time. It also refers to a day being a thousand years at one point. However, that's been gone over. That isn't what this thread is about. No mental gymnastics needed. Men are fallible, mistakes are made. Even when science seems wrong, it isn't because science is wrong, it is because men interpreted data wrong.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You can't really literally make it say anything...it says what it says. It can absolutely be mistranslated.

a reply to: SuperFrog

Plenty of evidence that the bible is not referring to literal days. I already went over light in another thread. That isn't what this post is about. And are you saying because I hold a masters degree in a field of science I am not allowed to believe in god? That is also not part of this discussion. As this is a creation/religious forum this is for what others who subscribe to creation may feel about this information.

Edit: @SuperFrog I just went to that thread, you asked this exact same question and I gave you an answer. So this seems to be your go to question...you should remember who you've asked it to though.
edit on 14-8-2014 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You can't really literally make it say anything...it says what it says. It can absolutely be mistranslated.


Certainly, but I'm not one that believes that the bible holds any sort of truth so that isn't really necessary to tell me. To me, it is just a collection of myths and at times decent advise (I wouldn't even call it great advise since I can find much better advise from other sources). So I know that it says what it says. I was just giving you a leg up to justify your beliefs like every other Christian does.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: SuperFrog

Plenty of evidence that the bible is not referring to literal days. I already went over light in another thread. That isn't what this post is about. And are you saying because I hold a masters degree in a field of science I am not allowed to believe in god? That is also not part of this discussion. As this is a creation/religious forum this is for what others who subscribe to creation may feel about this information.


So, care to provide evidence where it say - day in genesis is not earth day? I don't remember seeing it anywhere when I read it, and believe me, being atheist at the time, I was looking for such a reference.

Holding master degree does not mean much, except that all scientific books that you read you simply did not believe or untruthfully have answered your questions ins school queses... for example, how earth was created, or in biology, how we evolved.

You know, you can't believe that God created Adam and then Eve from his ribs, and then as well believe that millions years of evolution lead to where we are right now.

As for light, I don't remember seeing that anywhere - care to point to that discussion?

Sure, this is creation/religion sub-forum, but your first sentence is clearly stating that you are scientist and that you believe in scientific method, following with rest of post where you mix your religious belief with something that is untestable and so far proven very wrong.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I think most people are flat out wrong about their beliefs and THEY try and justify it. Let me elaborate. I subscribe heavily to science as the key and answer to understanding our universe. The answers we find from it should reshape dogma that may not actually hold any footing in the texts religions are based on.

For example, does a religion itself teach that the earth is 6k years old? Yes, several do. Those should then be disregarded as an authority on scripture as reality disagrees with their view. They obviously got it wrong.

Just as scientific understanding of a subject can change as new information is found, so should someones belief system be subject to change if data is given that refutes their belief system. If your belief system can change without contradicting the foundation of your belief system, then there should be no issue.

So who's belief system is it that birds were created on the 5th day? Man's religions, based on man's translation, primarily King James. Is the foundation shaken if it wasn't birds, simply insects? Nope, it does not contradict the literal translation and therefore the foundation is in tact.

This has nothing to do with mental gymnastics, this is refining understanding.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: SuperFrog

Why would I not agree with how the earth was formed? Why would I not agree with how we evolved? I think you are drastically confused...again, you asked these identical questions in another thread, so I think you have a checklist of questions to ask...

And considering I didn't put anything in my OP concerning scientific method, I fail to see what was proven very wrong. It seems you may have canned text responses and as such I probably won't really offer you further responses. You seem to just want to argue with those who believe in a god based on our past interaction. I am not here to preach or convert.
edit on 14-8-2014 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Birds are dinosaurs and dinosaurs are birds.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko




I have found I can resolve with science the entire creation account in genesis if the days of creation are not literal days.


How can you think that the days of creation were not literal?


..............And the evening and the morning were the first day.

..............And the evening and the morning were the second day.

..............And the evening and the morning were the third day.

..............And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

..............And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.



And, it was "good" until it wasn't!


And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.


This "stuff" just can't be reconciled with science!
edit on 14-8-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I think most people are flat out wrong about their beliefs and THEY try and justify it. Let me elaborate. I subscribe heavily to science as the key and answer to understanding our universe. The answers we find from it should reshape dogma that may not actually hold any footing in the texts religions are based on.

For example, does a religion itself teach that the earth is 6k years old? Yes, several do. Those should then be disregarded as an authority on scripture as reality disagrees with their view. They obviously got it wrong.

Just as scientific understanding of a subject can change as new information is found, so should someones belief system be subject to change if data is given that refutes their belief system. If your belief system can change without contradicting the foundation of your belief system, then there should be no issue.

So who's belief system is it that birds were created on the 5th day? Man's religions, based on man's translation, primarily King James. Is the foundation shaken if it wasn't birds, simply insects? Nope, it does not contradict the literal translation and therefore the foundation is in tact.

This has nothing to do with mental gymnastics, this is refining understanding.


I've played this game with religions and at the end of the day, I've found that all of Christianity is wrong. Stripping Christianity of its dogma in the face of reality leaves just this one saying, "Do unto others as they would do to you." But there are better religions that preach that same message with dogmas that coincide better with reality. Buddhism for one. Not to say that Buddhism is correct, but I would certainly be a Buddhist before I were to ever be a Christian again. Too much baggage with that religion and at least Buddhists tend to practice what they preach.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 02:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: SuperFrog

Why would I not agree with how the earth was formed? Why would I not agree with how we evolved? I think you are drastically confused...again, you asked these identical questions in another thread, so I think you have a checklist of questions to ask...

And considering I didn't put anything in my OP concerning scientific method, I fail to see what was proven very wrong. It seems you may have canned text responses and as such I probably won't really offer you further responses. You seem to just want to argue with those who believe in a god based on our past interaction. I am not here to preach or convert.


Very interesting way to avoid unwanted questions....

But if makes you feel better that fairy tale you believe in is true, go for it... just leave science out of it.

And to answer first question - why would you not believe how earth was formed - because it did not happen how it was described in same book you try here to prove correct, by applying assumption and as many others - blame it on translation...



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: SuperFrog

Blame it on translation? Again, you and I have had THIS EXACT SAME CONVERSATION in another thread. There is no translation issue there...


In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth


What method of creation is listed there? None. Why in the world would I have to disagree with science based on that scripture?? You can't just wildly claim that because I am a scientist I can't believe in god. Your sole reason for coming to this thread seems to be to derail it. Please keep this specifically about how Genesis 1:20 is translated and compares to Genesis 2:19. If you don't want to discuss that, please move on.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I agree with you, that is why I am non-denominational and am no part of a religion. I am simply a Christian in that I find the teachings in the New Testament resonate with me the most concerning how I should treat others and how I should view this short life I have.

I actually studied Buddhism for almost 3 years.

This specific subject, bird before land animals, has always been difficult for me and many people write it off or have another answer. This seems to be the most plausible explanation for how this specific text (1:20) should be read when taken into context with 2:19.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

Like I said in my initial post, you can read the text however you want. Everyone else does. There isn't exactly any standard to say how the bible is supposed to be read. So in my mind, you are all equally correct and equally wrong. In the end, that is the result you get for trusting in a book written 2000+ years ago without any updates or clarifications from the man upstairs.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 02:28 PM
link   
I don't want to get into the debate, but I wanted to thank you for sharing this. I had never heard of insect interpretation before.

I believe the bible is inerrant... however, I also believe that our human interpretations of the bible are prone to error and biases and all kinds of problems. Ultimately, I believe science will not contradict the bible - when both are properly understood. Afterall...all truth is God's truth. Christians shouldn't be afraid to study science and marvel at His creation. We are barely in the infancy stage of understanding our world and the universe scientifically - it is exciting stuff.


Thanks again for your post!



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: SuperFrog

Blame it on translation? Again, you and I have had THIS EXACT SAME CONVERSATION in another thread. There is no translation issue there...


In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth


What method of creation is listed there? None. Why in the world would I have to disagree with science based on that scripture?? You can't just wildly claim that because I am a scientist I can't believe in god. Your sole reason for coming to this thread seems to be to derail it. Please keep this specifically about how Genesis 1:20 is translated and compares to Genesis 2:19. If you don't want to discuss that, please move on.


Wait a second, let's start from beginning, and this is beginning of Genesis - isn't it:


1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Note, earth was created before 'light', and if you believe in science, you would know that earth formed from dust of star that exploded before it. There was light in space for almost 10 billions years before earth was even created. There was no darkens in earth creation, as it was all kind of very hot and eruptive.. Check new cosmos for great presentation of earth creation.



And now, 1-20 through 1-23, verse you like to talk about...



20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.”
21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.”
23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.


Nah, to me looks like very busy day... everything created on earth, few days earlier...

This fundamentalist literal view of bible cant go with science, sorry... but again, if it makes you feel better, go for it... just leave science out of it. It's origins and creation sub-forum, as you said it yourself.




top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join