The Big Bang (Genesis 1:2-3)

a reply to: Dewts

Yep.

I reckon when God said 'Let there be light!', he wasn't referring to high-energy gamma. Or microwaves.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Dewts

Yep.

I reckon when God said 'Let there be light!', he wasn't referring to high-energy gamma. Or microwaves.

I was being as charitable as I could to the OP's thesis.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Dewts

The CMB does not exist as visible light. It never did. By the time decoupling occurred (and yes, 380k years is about right for that), this relic energy from the Big Bang had already fallen below the threshold of human visibility.

The earliest visible light in the universe came from stars, and was emitted about 400M years ago.

First visible light came first from stars? Ok.

Moses saw creation from a different observation point than science.

Moses had a vision and observed creation from outside of Our universe. Science observe light from within the universe.

Since there are two different observation Points wouldnt there also be two tottaly different explanations of creation?

a reply to: spy66

If you're so desperate to reconcile the two accounts, any implausible rigmarole will do — why not?

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: spy66

If you're so desperate to reconcile the two accounts, any implausible rigmarole will do — why not?

I am not desperate, but it is a significant difference we have to take into account. Also the speed of which Moses saw the visions in genesis Chapter 1.

And than Moses had to make some sense out of what he saw on top of that, to put it in writing. Moses didnt have the knowledge to explain what he saw like we might have today if we had the same vision.

a reply to: spy66

So it's not that the Sun and all the stars were actually made on Day 4, it's just his perception of that because that's when light became visible to him? Right? Yet he saw the days prior. So what was that source of light? Diffused sunlight and a thick atmosphere? Yet even via his perception he is clearly stating light didn't reach Earth until Day 4. Diffused or otherwise. Doesn't add up.

You sound so certain Genesis was a vision of Moses. Can you post verses suggesting that? I can't find any. I'm not talking about authorship. Specifically that it was a divine vision. Should he have authored it, he could have got the Genesis account from prior texts or oral tradition.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: spy66

So it's not that the Sun and all the stars were actually made on Day 4, it's just his perception of that because that's when light became visible to him? Right? Yet he saw the days prior. So what was that source of light? Diffused sunlight and a thick atmosphere? Yet even via his perception he is clearly stating light didn't reach Earth until Day 4. Diffused or otherwise. Doesn't add up.

You sound so certain Genesis was a vision of Moses. Can you post verses suggesting that? I can't find any. I'm not talking about authorship. Specifically that it was a divine vision. Should he have authored it, he could have got the Genesis account from prior texts or oral tradition.

¨

Two different light became visible to Moses. The first light in verse 3. And the lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night verse 14.

The first light in verse 3 is the light emitted from making of the firmament "Heaven". Our Universe.
Moses didnt see the firmament until he describes it in verse 6.

Heaven, Our universe was created and Complete in verse 8. Ref verse 1. God created the heaven and the Earth. NB. By Complete i mean the firmament had all the Properties needed to form the rest that is to come.

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

I am not certain that it was Moses who had the vision. I am just stating KJV Bible. It dosent really matter to me who had the vision. It is the vision it self that matters.

originally posted by: spy66
Moses saw creation from a different observation point than science.

Moses had a vision and observed creation from outside of Our universe. Science observe light from within the universe.

Any evidence for that?

Does Moses write any of that in the torah?

a reply to: spy66

Alright two different lights. So first one being 'the firmament', and the second one being the light from stars. This person having the vision sees the light from stars, including the Sun, on day 4. So on Day 3, although there is 'light' in the Universe, there is no Sunlight. Now explain fruit trees growing to maturation on Day 3 on Earth. That first kind of light doesn't help that thriving plant life on our tiny blue dot.

I am just stating KJV Bible. It dosent really matter to me who had the vision. It is the vision it self that matters.

Okay so any verses to suggest Genesis was a vision to being with?

It's all semantics, spy66 posts illustrates perhaps the largest problem with human cognition... confirmation bias.

Nothing ventured nothing gained. There is no risk to the human imagination hypothesis from any contrary evidence, it can't be falsified in any honest\real sense. It is the "god-did-it" hypothesis, and is impractical for leading to any investigation of any phenomena. The "god-did-it" - becomes an excuse to NOT investigate things further ...
The phenomena is explained, so why even look.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: spy66

Alright two different lights. So first one being 'the firmament', and the second one being the light from stars. This person having the vision sees the light from stars, including the Sun, on day 4. So on Day 3, although there is 'light' in the Universe, there is no Sunlight. Now explain fruit trees growing to maturation on Day 3 on Earth. That first kind of light doesn't help that thriving plant life on our tiny blue dot.

I am just stating KJV Bible. It dosent really matter to me who had the vision. It is the vision it self that matters.

Okay so any verses to suggest Genesis was a vision to being with?

Ok. Lets bring up verse 11 and 12.

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

When i read verse 11 and 12. I only read that Earth brings forth the seeds that will become these plants. But the seed are not growing yet.

God said: let Earth bring forth the seeds and so on. This means that God really didnt do any of this at this stage....Earth brought forth the seeds.
Earth have the Properties to form the seeds. And that is what Earth did.

a reply to: spy66

I am not desperate, but it is a significant difference we have to take into account.

A difference between a primitive creation-myth and the scientific account of the origin of the universe has no significance whatsoever. Obviously they will differ; one is a sophisticated scenario based on the available facts, the other is a work of fiction dreamed up by savages. We should not expect them to agree, and indeed they do not.

However, since you want to believe the fiction and can't avoid the facts, you have some mental gymnastics to do. It really doesn't matter which particular gymnastic routines you choose so long as they leave you dizzy enough to be unable to distinguish science from tall tales. Just keep on spinning.

a reply to: spy66

Genesis 1:11-13 NIV
11 Then God said, Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

The land produced plants and trees. It's not saying god sowed the ground with seeds. It's saying plants grew, and those plants were capable of producing seeds themselves. All on Day 3.

I don't understand how you're reading that to say 'the seeds are not growing yet'. It said the fruit has the seeds in them...so the fruit is part of what the land produced and what god saw was good. On Day 3.

That's how I read it anyways.

Astyanax
You're the writer and editor... am I reading the implications properly?

Reply later.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: spy66

I am not desperate, but it is a significant difference we have to take into account.

A difference between a primitive creation-myth and the scientific account of the origin of the universe has no significance whatsoever. Obviously they will differ; one is a sophisticated scenario based on the available facts, the other is a work of fiction dreamed up by savages. We should not expect them to agree, and indeed they do not.

However, since you want to believe the fiction and can't avoid the facts, you have some mental gymnastics to do. It really doesn't matter which particular gymnastic routines you choose so long as they leave you dizzy enough to be unable to distinguish science from tall tales. Just keep on spinning.

Yeah still. It all seams to make you angry. I read a lot of anger in you reply here.

You might not see how a like they are, but that is not my problem. They are all Yours.

You are to one sighted onto science and cant understand anything else. Youare very well groomed through the School system.
This topic is not for you at all.

a reply to: spy66

You are very well groomed through the School system.

I get the feeling you meant that as an insult. I get the feeling he won't take it as one.

originally posted by: spy66
Youare very well groomed through the School system.
This topic is not for you at all.

Nope you gotta get em when they're young and dumb right?

It makes zero sense at all for God to create day and night without the sun. It clearly divides the days in the bible and says evening came and went, which indicates the Sun is already there and the earth revolved around it and rotated on its axis from the very first day. Otherwise there is no day/night, and for the sun to be there, yet no light reaches earth for billions of years doesn't make sense in the least.

Also when the bible says "firmament" or "vault" it is clearly referring to the perceived barrier that separates the earth's atmosphere from space. It's just another example of how poorly people understood the earth and space at the time it was written. Some of the more literal translations of the bible say that it separates the waters from the waters. Basically they think that outer space is made up of water and there is a barrier holding it all back. This simply is not true. We do have an ozone layer and magnetosphere to protect us from certain space debris and solar flares, but outer space isn't composed of water and the barrier isn't even a physical shield. People just assumed space was water because they didn't know any better, just like with earth being the center of the solar system, and the idea that an all powerful being needs rest or would flood the entire earth in a fit of rage over something that he created full well knowing what would happen.

a reply to: spy66

a lot of anger in you reply

how a like they are

They are all Yours.

You are to one sighted

cant understand

Youare very well groomed through the School system.

Yes — thanks to the school system, I can understand what I read. And spell properly too.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: spy66

a lot of anger in you reply

how a like they are

They are all Yours.

You are to one sighted

cant understand

Youare very well groomed through the School system.

Yes — thanks to the school system, I can understand what I read. And spell properly too.

Yes right....

This is what happeneds when People like you meet People like me. You can suddenly not use Your Scientific knowledge to argue this topic. That is why you dont belong here. You dont have the mind to argue this, so you start to pick on me.

I at least tried to argue this topic without attacking you.