The Big Bang (Genesis 1:2-3)

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: cooperton

Oh wait, are you saying science is right after all?! Too bad it states the big bang happened billions of years ago instead of 6,000.

From what frame of reference are you measuring time?

a reply to: Barcs

I never inserted an unknown source of light, you simply lack reading comprehension. Also, if you think a thick atmosphere on a young planet contradicts science then you don't actually follow the science like you claim.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

All the references you gave speaks of the Great Auroch (a species of wild bull, now extinct) not unicorn. Here is a Wikipedia link on the Aurochs.

The references you gave from Deuteronomy 33:17 & Psalm 22:21 use the word horn but does not say how many there are. The number is inferred by the translators because the names of both God and the Aurochs are plural (in God's case, an honorific).

Psalm 92:10 only refers to the 'horn' of the psalmist, there is no mention of the 'horn', or 'horns' of the Aurochs (plural) at all. Another translational liberty.

You really need to get a better translation.

originally posted by: Entreri06

originally posted by: cooperton

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.
And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

(Genesis 1:2-3)


Similarly, our current explanation for the dawn of our universe is that there was an inexplicable explosion of light from emptiness - the big bang.

How were these biblical writers able to know this? We are left with the conclusion that this was indeed Divinely inspired.

How convenient that you left out how on the 4th?(I think 4th) he created the stars and moon..... After the earth, oceans and fish I think.

Excellent cherry picking !!! Lol

Also, there were plants as well created before the stars and moon.

But light, was created well before the stars and could sustain plants.

Also, if the Earth was created, it could exist (with life) before other astronomical bodies.

You are mixing up cosmological theories and a created universe but they are quite different in process. I do not believe that there is much overlap.

originally posted by: Entreri06

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Sremmos80

Actually, he rode a unicorn. You do know unicorns used to exist right? They're in the bible!

Actually they are not. Common tactic used by people who hate Christians/Christianity. I suppose it's better to be ignorant than informed though.

Ya lol, you don't have to hate something/one to think they are hilarious.


So just out of curiosity, you do believe there were unicorns, giants and a global floood killed all but one family who we are the incestual decendants of, but Jesus never rode a unicorn so the pic is ridiculous!!!


Am I close? Hehe

Geneticist Brian Sykes wrote a book called "The Seven Daughters of Eve" where he deduced from mitochondrial DNA that the human population was significantly reduced (the seven mDNA types being the progenitors of all humans currently alive). This could have happened by a disaster like a widespread flood.

The word Nephil (meaning 'the fallen') was translated into Greek as "gigantes" and this was then translated into English as "giants" but that is not in the original text. Although the offspring of the Nephil, the Rephaim (meaning 'to sink down') all seemed to have specific genetic deformities. One family of the Rephaim was the children of Anak, which were all described as physically of great stature. So, no actual race of Giants just a deformed family.

Also the "unicorns" were another mistranslation into English. The original word was probably describing the wild 'Great Auroch' from whom modern domesticated cattle are thought to descend.

So, no giants in the Bible, no unicorns in the Bible and science (from a number of directions) supports a flood.

I'd also like to point out that there was also no talking snake, either. The word mistranslated as snake was "Nachash" (meaning 'the shining one') and is plainly a supernatural being.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

1. In the Beginning God created The Heaven and The Earth.

If i read this correct God first created the Heaven and than the Earth.

In verse two Moses explaines how the infinite void looked like before anything was formed.

2. And 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.

God had not yet created anything so moses could not see Earth. But Gods spirit was there. God must have been there since God always was ane always is.



3. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Since God is a spirit. Moses must have heard Gods Words in he's mind. Not through he's ears.

Since moses can see a light; God must have done something besides saying: Let there be light. Because there can not be a light without a Source that emitts light.


4.And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

God did not really divide light from darkness in verse 4. When God said let there be light in verse 3. That is actually when God divided the light from darkness. Because in verse 2. There was nothing but darknes upon the face of the deep.

Moses didnt see anything until God said: Let there be light.

What moses didnt see was what Source that was present to emitt the light that he saw. Not until later.


5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

A lot of Things can be interpreted from this verse. But we know that at night it is darkness and we know that the sun shines when it is day.


6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

This is actually what God should have said in verse 3. Because than we would have unerstood this much easier, Because this is the Sources that emitted the light that Moses saw in verse 3. But the bright light prevented Moses from seeing the Source.

And remember verse two. There was nothing but darkness upon the face of the deep. And Gods spirit moved upon the face of the waters. Now the firmament Divides the water from the waters. There is a firmament present that was not in the mist of the waters before.

This firmament is what science Wold refer to as the singularity. It is the differance between finite and infinite.


7. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

This verse is just a recap of what has taken Place since verse 2. so far. The firmament was already formed in verse 3. So God didnt make the firmament in verse 7.


8. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

Now it is important to go back and read verse 1. In the beginning God created The Heaven and The Earth.

So now we know that the firmament actually represents Heaven.


9. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

I Guess God and Moses are observing the firmament from the outside. That is probably why they would formulate the verse this way. We know now that the firmament is heaven, the singularity. So i Guess if God had said: Let the waters within the firmament be gathered unto one Place. This might have made more sense to us. And i Guess water represents energies and not actuall water like sea or fresh water.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The word re'im comes from the word raam, which means to rise. The exact definition of re'im is unknown, it is a reference to an extinct animal. Since it is extinct and we don't know the exact definition, it really could have been a unicorn. The word used does not have an exact definition, so not even you know whether it was really a unicorn or not, no one does.

I don't know what the animal referred to actually was, neither do you. I was only responding to a humorous post with a humorous post of my own. Don't get so butthurt.

An animal that became extinct in 1627, or thereabouts. Not extinct at the time Genesis was written.

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Because it was alive when the Bible was written, and extinct thousands of years later when the KJV was created. How is that difficult to understand?

How long ago was the bible written . When did they die out , last week .

1627.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

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.

Nechash means 'the shining one', not snake.

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.

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.

Unlike English and most modern languages, Hebrew is pictographic. Each letter has a meaning and words and names are a string of known meanings. If you were to change the meaning of a single letter, it would poison the whole language and make it meaningless. In this way, Hebrew is resistant to change. The next language used in the original Bible is Aramaic, this is strongly related to Hebrew and is used very sparsely in the Bible. The next language used in the Bible is Biblical Greek. This language is very strongly typed, with very specific use of tenses, gender, and meaning, far more so than other languages.

I think from all the human languages at His disposal, God made pretty good choices.

a reply to: raymundoko

Genesis does not say no light reaches the earth. You are inferring that because it supports your point of view.

I didn’t say Genesis said no light reaches the Earth. Genesis says light reaches the Earth specifically on Day 4. Thus no light reaches the Earth prior to Day 4. I am literally posting the verses verbatim.

Again:

And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

^It’s clearly saying it’s on Day 4 that light reaches Earth.

Anyways this is beating a dead horse. If you don't agree with the logic here then so be it

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Man's time is not the same as time everywhere else in the universe.

Ah, the old escape clause: 'a thousand ages in Thy sight are like an evening gone.'

Read this thread and see what a twist the OP gets into trying to defend that position.

Perhaps you should revisit that thread?

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

There is no argument "the conclusion" is not a conclusion at all LOL wow
talks about blind faith

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: sweets777
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

math isnt strong evidence as a matter of fact it changes its mind more often than religion
Math said once ...............Fact that the earth was flat .......................wrong

Math said once...........fact the earth is the center of the solar system ............wrong

Math said once ........Fact there is no partical smaller than an atom...............Wrong

Math you can keep your facts i want the TRUTH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are completely wrong on all accounts. Math never said any of those things, humans did.

FACT: Only a small percentage of the population of earth actually thought the earth was flat, and it was a religious viewpoint, not a scientific or mathematical one. Sorry.

Yes, it was a religious viewpoint, but only by those who did not pay attention to their Bible.

"It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers... " Isiah 40:22.

"... He hangs the earth on nothing" Job 26:7.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: sweets777
a reply to: GetHyped

facts change only the truth is eternal

This is backwards. Facts never change because they are facts. Truth changes all the time.

Both facts and truth never change. They simply are.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

You're right it is beating a dead horse, because you choose to ignore that light was already visible as mentioned on the first day.

Many theologians agree with my point of view. One midrash says Moses was on a mountaintop watching the creation in a vision, so from his point if view the stars and sun were made until day 4 because that is when they are finally visible.

a reply to: raymundoko

the stars and sun were made until day 4 because that is when they are finally visible.

aka when sunlight reached the surface of Earth.

If it was from Moses's point of view, and from his perspective light became visible on Day 4, then how did he watch anything prior to Day 4 in that vision?

Many theologians agree with my point of view.

Many theologists believe many things counter to what evidence shows.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

What exactly did Moses see? He saw darkness, then he saw light, then he saw the sky and then he started to see plants. He didn't really see anything else. Are you reading a different bible? THEN he started to see the Sun, Moon and Stars.

Light existed long before day 4. Why do you intentionally ignore:

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.”

Earth's Significant Loss of Atmosphere

The atmospheric compositions of Venus and Earth differ significantly, with the venusian atmosphere containing about 50 times as much 36Ar as the atmosphere on Earth1. The different effects of the solar wind on planet-forming materials for Earth and Venus have been proposed to account for some of this difference in atmospheric composition2, 3, but the cause of the compositional difference has not yet been fully resolved. Here we propose that the absence or presence of an ocean at the surface of a protoplanet during the giant impact phase could have determined its subsequent atmospheric amount and composition. Using numerical simulations, we demonstrate that the presence of an ocean significantly enhances the loss of atmosphere during a giant impact owing to two effects: evaporation of the ocean, and lower shock impedance of the ocean compared to the ground. Protoplanets near Earth's orbit are expected to have had oceans, whereas those near Venus' orbit are not, and we therefore suggest that remnants of the noble-gas rich proto-atmosphere survived on Venus, but not on Earth. Our proposed mechanism explains differences in the atmospheric contents of argon, krypton and xenon on Venus and Earth, but most of the neon must have escaped from both planets' atmospheres later to yield the observed ratio of neon to argon.

Edit: I get it, you are an atheist and anti religion, but you suffer from the same dogmatic mindset that religious types hold to and which you seem to be predisposed to call them on (and rightfully so). You think only your view is the correct one, and there is no way you are wrong. My view is counter to the majority of Christians, but similar to many actual theologians and Jewish scholars. Reading through your post history it seems you gravitate to "religious" threads to simply argue, and from what I can tell you argue the same points over, and over, and over, and over. There is honest debate, and then there is berating. You seem to berate religious types as you appear to have some contempt for them.

a reply to: raymundoko

I am ignoring nothing.

Whatever 'light' is being referred to prior to Day 4 is obviously a different kind of 'light'. It can't be the kind of light that comes from stars as none existed prior to Day 4 per Genesis. I fully acknowledge Genesis is saying some kind of 'light' existed prior to Day 4.

As for this Moses spin:

You yourself said light wasn't visible to Moses until Day 4 in his vision of creation. If it was the light from the Sun reaching Earth prior to Day 4 then obviously that would have been visible to Moses. It became visible to Moses on Day 4 because that's when the Sun came to be. Unless the Sun has an invisible mode I am not aware of.

then he saw the sky and then he started to see plants.

You said the Sun and stars didn't become visible to Moses until Day 4. So how is he seeing these plants on Day 3?

Instead of telling me I am ignoring this other 'light', why don't you explain the nature of this light?

You did a bunch of attacking of my character. You should know that won't bother me. My contempt is with religion itself. My best friend is Mormon, and I love the guy.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

That isn't what I said. I said the sun and starts were clearly visible, i.e. able to be made out and observed. Prior to that the atmosphere was too think to allow a clear observation of the sun, moon or stars. Nothing but diffused light.