The Big Bang (Genesis 1:2-3)

originally posted by: Prezbo369

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?

No not at all. It is sad that educated People cant be used to argue this topic. She claimes that she can read and understand what she reads. But that is exactly what she cant do.

She dosent understand genesis Chapter one at all. She can read the text in genesis but she dosent understand what she reads.

a reply to: spy66

You can suddenly not use Your Scientific knowledge to argue this topic.

Why not?

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

Oh, really? What do you call this, then?

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.

There's not one word about the topic in that post. It's all about me.

You dont belong here.

You dont have the mind to argue this.

Charming, and fully on topic, I'm sure.

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.

Moses, the main writer of the Old Testament, helped thousands of people escape slavery, but he's a savage? Regardless, Genesis 1:2 reaffirms scientific knowledge, or rather scientific knowledge reaffirms Genesis 1:2. A literal translation of this verse indicates how Elohim was able to create:

"the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters," (Young's literal translation)

Fluttering is a synonym for pulsating. Pulsating entities give rise to waveform (www.youtube.com...) (video of the effect of vibration on a water droplet, you can skip to 1:20) . We now know that everything in our universe is waveform energy, even matter is super-dense waveform energy. What the Bible is saying by "fluttering" is that God was the source of the energy of the universe.

a reply to: cooperton

Moses, the main writer of the Old Testament, helped thousands of people escape slavery, but he's a savage?

Numbers 31:7-18 NIV
7 They fought against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every man. 8 Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10 They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho.

13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.

15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

Murder, rape, and pedophilia condoned and commanded by Moses. Savage to put it mildly.

originally posted by: spy66

No not at all. It is sad that educated People cant be used to argue this topic. She claimes that she can read and understand what she reads. But that is exactly what she cant do.

She dosent understand genesis Chapter one at all. She can read the text in genesis but she dosent understand what she reads.

According to who? you?

Any and every interpretation is utterly and completely subjective. This is what comes from a vague and rambling collection of stories and superstitions from third parties about stories.

That is unless you can show that you alone have the worlds first correct interpretation of genesis?

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: spy66

No not at all. It is sad that educated People cant be used to argue this topic. She claimes that she can read and understand what she reads. But that is exactly what she cant do.

She dosent understand genesis Chapter one at all. She can read the text in genesis but she dosent understand what she reads.

According to who? you?

Any and every interpretation is utterly and completely subjective. This is what comes from a vague and rambling collection of stories and superstitions from third parties about stories.

That is unless you can show that you alone have the worlds first correct interpretation of genesis?

Yes according to me...

Every interpretation is utterly subjective?? Yes they are to you. Because you dont understand Genesis either than.
Genesis is only subjective to the once who dont grasp it.

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: spy66

No not at all. It is sad that educated People cant be used to argue this topic. She claimes that she can read and understand what she reads. But that is exactly what she cant do.

She dosent understand genesis Chapter one at all. She can read the text in genesis but she dosent understand what she reads.

According to who? you?

Any and every interpretation is utterly and completely subjective. This is what comes from a vague and rambling collection of stories and superstitions from third parties about stories.

That is unless you can show that you alone have the worlds first correct interpretation of genesis?

Yes according to me...

Every interpretation is utterly subjective?? Yes they are to you. Because you dont understand Genesis either than.
Genesis is only subjective to the once who dont grasp it.

What is the objective interpretation of Genesis, then?

originally posted by: cooperton

Moses, the main writer of the Old Testament, helped thousands of people escape slavery

Allegedly. You can't prove that Moses led a bunch of slaves out of Egypt (no documentation in Egypt exists to support the Bible account) any more than you can prove the Genesis account in the bible or if Jesus existed or not.

but he's a savage?

Actually, it is likely that he was a warlord leading the Hebrew people (an ancient mercenary people) on a path of conquest to "the promised land" (or rather where ever he felt they felt like they could set up a country, people already occupying it be damned).

Regardless, Genesis 1:2 reaffirms scientific knowledge, or rather scientific knowledge reaffirms Genesis 1:2. A literal translation of this verse indicates how Elohim was able to create:

"the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters," (Young's literal translation)

Fluttering is a synonym for pulsating. Pulsating entities give rise to waveform (www.youtube.com...) (video of the effect of vibration on a water droplet, you can skip to 1:20) . We now know that everything in our universe is waveform energy, even matter is super-dense waveform energy. What the Bible is saying by "fluttering" is that God was the source of the energy of the universe.

Yea... Except how does the Earth exist without form and is void? Isn't that the opposite of existing?

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: spy66

No not at all. It is sad that educated People cant be used to argue this topic. She claimes that she can read and understand what she reads. But that is exactly what she cant do.

She dosent understand genesis Chapter one at all. She can read the text in genesis but she dosent understand what she reads.

According to who? you?

Any and every interpretation is utterly and completely subjective. This is what comes from a vague and rambling collection of stories and superstitions from third parties about stories.

That is unless you can show that you alone have the worlds first correct interpretation of genesis?

Yes according to me...

Every interpretation is utterly subjective?? Yes they are to you. Because you dont understand Genesis either than.
Genesis is only subjective to the once who dont grasp it.

An objective account of Genesis highlights many contradictions and puts the order of events of universal development out of order. The ONLY way you can read Genesis and say that it is valid is if you read it subjectively. Reading it objectively gets you no where.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t


An objective account of Genesis highlights many contradictions and puts the order of events of universal development out of order.

Shhh! Don't ruin it, I wanna hear this "objective" interpretation

grabs popcorn

originally posted by: spy66
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've been trying to say this from the beginning. The genesis account absolutely cannot be reconciled with science, and that was the premise of the thread and is why people with scientific knowledge are arguing against the idea. It is specifically because they DO understand the science while the folks trying to justify it do not.

The Genesis account directly conflicts with numerous fields of scientific research, so attempting to reconcile it with science is silly. It normally wouldn't be necessary to argue such things, but there are people out there that want their faith to be true so badly that they'll cherry pick and make up all sorts of things to support the narrative.

Yes according to me...

Every interpretation is utterly subjective?? Yes they are to you. Because you dont understand Genesis either than.
Genesis is only subjective to the ones who dont grasp it.

So anybody that doesn't agree with your personal interpretation of Genesis, doesn't understand it? That seems to be a pretty popular argument in this thread, but it isn't really valid. It's just used as a defense mechanism against anybody who points out conflicts in Genesis with science. Rather than present a counterpoint to the argument they'd rather just say, "you don't understand it" or "you don't know what reading comprehension is". But they don't address the actual points. Why?

a reply to: spy66

Reply later.

Did you forget you were going to reply later? This post.

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: spy66

No not at all. It is sad that educated People cant be used to argue this topic. She claimes that she can read and understand what she reads. But that is exactly what she cant do.

She dosent understand genesis Chapter one at all. She can read the text in genesis but she dosent understand what she reads.

According to who? you?

Any and every interpretation is utterly and completely subjective. This is what comes from a vague and rambling collection of stories and superstitions from third parties about stories.

That is unless you can show that you alone have the worlds first correct interpretation of genesis?

Yes according to me...

Every interpretation is utterly subjective?? Yes they are to you. Because you dont understand Genesis either than.
Genesis is only subjective to the once who dont grasp it.

Your book spends all of what, like a page or two describing the process? And yet you spend how many pages trying to explain it? And it takes you so much effort because your interpretation is so different from everyone else. Color me unimpressed. Your thesis does in fact conflict with various theologies, fallible human interpretations based on fallible human misunderstandings. Those theologies also have nothing to do with the Bible, except for how you choose to misinterpret it.

a reply to: cooperton

Moses, the main writer of the Old Testament

He wasn't even the author of the Pentateuch, let alone the rest of the Old Testament.

helped thousands of people escape slavery

The Hebrews were never slaves in Egypt.

Genesis 1:2 reaffirms scientific knowledge, or rather scientific knowledge reaffirms Genesis 1:2

Information on this thread clearly shows that it does nothing of the kind.

Fluttering is a synonym for pulsating.

Just barely. It is equally a synonym for drift, flicker, flit, flop, hover, quiver, shiver, throb, tremble, wobble, dance, palpitate, ripple and ruffle. Personally, I prefer 'the Spirit of God wobbled over the face of the waters.' Or perhaps 'the Spirit of God flopped over the face of the waters.'

We now know that everything in our universe is waveform energy

We know nothing of the kind. Mass-energy equivalence doesn't mean what you think it means.

There is more error crammed into your one post than I have seen on entire threads in the past. Well done!

originally posted by: flyingfish

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: spy66

No not at all. It is sad that educated People cant be used to argue this topic. She claimes that she can read and understand what she reads. But that is exactly what she cant do.

She dosent understand genesis Chapter one at all. She can read the text in genesis but she dosent understand what she reads.

According to who? you?

Any and every interpretation is utterly and completely subjective. This is what comes from a vague and rambling collection of stories and superstitions from third parties about stories.

That is unless you can show that you alone have the worlds first correct interpretation of genesis?

Yes according to me...

Every interpretation is utterly subjective?? Yes they are to you. Because you dont understand Genesis either than.
Genesis is only subjective to the once who dont grasp it.

Your book spends all of what, like a page or two describing the process? And yet you spend how many pages trying to explain it? And it takes you so much effort because your interpretation is so different from everyone else. Color me unimpressed. Your thesis does in fact conflict with various theologies, fallible human interpretations based on fallible human misunderstandings. Those theologies also have nothing to do with the Bible, except for how you choose to misinterpret it.

Ofcourse what i say differs from other various theologies. Many People dont agree With them if any at all Accept them selves. These People tell you what to think not how to think. Much like how science does to.

And i dont care if you are not impressed that is not my problem. It is not my problem that you dont get this, that is Your problem. It is you problem because you are told what to think not how to.......

a reply to: spy66

Can you tell us what this objective interpretation of Genesis is, then?

a reply to: spy66

How is it his problem, when you refuse to even address the factors and /or counterpoints that go against your interpretation? It's kind of funny how people selectively respond to things in this thread. Virtually every single argument against these claims has been completely ignored or dismissed without reason. Every single one of you guys has done the same thing in this thread.

a reply to: spy66

These People tell you what to think not how to think.

You've been telling us what to think. You've been asserting your interpretation as if it were the definitive way to read Genesis without explanation as to how you came to it. Both you and Ray. When asked to corroborate the notion of Genesis being a vision from man's perspective, or diffused light through a thick atmosphere, you both have been silent. We have been taking the verses at face value. Which seems prudent as it certainly appears to be intended as a literal account. There is enough ambiguity to allow some wiggling around. Stars existing before Earth, and therefore sunshine reaching Earth prior to day 4, is not part of that flexibility. Genesis is more than clear when the stars and Sun were made by god. One of the many reasons Genesis and cosmology are not friends.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: spy66

These People tell you what to think not how to think.

You've been telling us what to think. You've been asserting your interpretation as if it were the definitive way to read Genesis without explanation as to how you came to it. Both you and Ray. When asked to corroborate the notion of Genesis being a vision from man's perspective, or diffused light through a thick atmosphere, you both have been silent. We have been taking the verses at face value. Which seems prudent as it certainly appears to be intended as a literal account. There is enough ambiguity to allow some wiggling around. Stars existing before Earth, and therefore sunshine reaching Earth prior to day 4, is not part of that flexibility. Genesis is more than clear when the stars and Sun were made by god. One of the many reasons Genesis and cosmology are not friends.

You use text from NIV. I use text from KJV.

NIV text seams to be added to compare to KJV.

KJV:

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.

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.

My personal opinion is that the vers describes the seed. The seed needs to come before the plants.

I gues all this can be argued to Death as usual.

a reply to: spy66

You use text from NIV. I use text from KJV.

I post NIV here. I use the Latin Vulgate just as often. I have done so for Genesis in the past. The Latin Vulgate is much older than the KJV.. If you would like me to post Genesis 1 [at least the verses in question] from the Latin Vulgate, and the English translation from them, I am more than happy. You will see that it conveys the same thing. KJV, NIV, and the Latin Vulgate are all clear as to when the Sun and all stars are made.

Here it is from your KJV:

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.

From the Latin Vulgate:

16 fecitque Deus duo magna luminaria luminare maius ut praeesset diei et luminare minus ut praeesset nocti et stellas

^Google translated to:

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars

The NIV, KJV, and the Latin Vulgate also specifically say it is on Day 4 that there was a light in the firmament of heaven to give light to Earth.

My personal opinion is that the vers describes the seed. The seed needs to come before the plants.

KJV:
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.

Latin Vulgate:
12 et protulit terra herbam virentem et adferentem semen iuxta genus suum lignumque faciens fructum et habens unumquodque sementem secundum speciem suam et vidit Deus quod esset bonum

12 and the earth brought forth grass, herbs yielding seed after their kind , and the tree that beareth fruit, having seed each one according to their kind: and God saw that it was good

To me it's saying grass grew. Herbs grew. Trees grew. Instead of arguing to death lets just agree to disagree? It seems neither is swaying the other.