Page 5 of 6

Re: The scientific proof for Genesis

Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2009 5:45 am
by touchingcloth
Byblos wrote:
touchingcloth wrote:So "the greater light to rule the day" isn't the sun?
Have you at all read any of the articles on the main page? If not, please spend some time reading them, you may be somewhat surprised. And if you did read them then your posts make no sense.
What actually "makes no sense" is the bible claiming that the sun, moon and stars were created in the same instant.
What actually "makes no sense" is the bible claiming that the sun was created after plants that needed it's energy for photosynthesis.
What actually "makes no sense" is the bible claiming that flowering plants were created before the insects needed to pollenate them.

What posts on the front page are you referring to?

Re: The scientific proof for Genesis

Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2009 8:43 am
by Gman
touchingcloth wrote:What actually "makes no sense" is the bible claiming that the sun, moon and stars were created in the same instant.
What actually "makes no sense" is the bible claiming that the sun was created after plants that needed it's energy for photosynthesis.
Are you truly reading the posts or do you just have an axe to grind? We already addressed that here.. http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 0&start=15

We have to understand scripture in the original Hebrew. The word "created" in Genesis 1:1 is the Hebrew word "erets" or "hashamayim we ha' erets," heavens (plural) and the earth (singular). "Hashamayim we ha' erets" consistently refers to the totality of the physical universe. All matter and energy and whatever else it contains including the light supplied in Genesis 1:3....
touchingcloth wrote:What actually "makes no sense" is the bible claiming that flowering plants were created before the insects needed to pollenate them.
Flowering plants? What verse are you specifically talking about?

Re: The scientific proof for Genesis

Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2009 9:04 am
by touchingcloth
The flowering plants verse is G.1:11-12 "fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind".

I'm not sure the distinction you're trying to make of asah translating as "made" rather than "created" (I did a bit of googling and the definitions of asah I found covered a whole range of terms that could loosely be translated as "brought into being" or "caused to be").
In short, are you saying that G.1:1 says (to crudely paraphrase) "God created everything" and then the following verses give a synopsis of that creation, in no particular order? Or are you saying that there is an order of creation that can be inferred in G.1?

Re: The scientific proof for Genesis

Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2009 11:41 am
by Gman
touchingcloth wrote:The flowering plants verse is G.1:11-12 "fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind".
It's all addressed here... Essentially the Bible is silent on the issue of flowering plants.

Does Old-Earth Creationism Contradict Genesis 1?: A Rebuttal to Terry Mortenson's Article “Evolution vs. Creation: the Order of Events Matters”

"The narrative of the third “day” tells us God caused the land to produce two types of vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees bearing fruit. The Hebrew word for “plant” (eseb) refers to green grasses and herbs.18 The Hebrew word for “tree” (ets) connotes plants with woody stalks.19 From this, we have a general idea of the vegetation the land was to produce. However, we do not know the specific plants and trees that appeared, nor do the Hebrew word meanings seem to encompass all the plant life on the Earth."
touchingcloth wrote:I'm not sure the distinction you're trying to make of asah translating as "made" rather than "created" (I did a bit of googling and the definitions of asah I found covered a whole range of terms that could loosely be translated as "brought into being" or "caused to be").
In short, are you saying that G.1:1 says (to crudely paraphrase) "God created everything" and then the following verses give a synopsis of that creation, in no particular order? Or are you saying that there is an order of creation that can be inferred in G.1?
What I'm saying is that "Hashamayim we ha' erets" consistently refers to the totality of the physical universe. The stars, the sun, light, the moon, etc...

Re: The scientific proof for Genesis

Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2009 11:53 am
by touchingcloth
Gman wrote:
touchingcloth wrote:The flowering plants verse is G.1:11-12 "fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind".
It's all addressed here... Essentially the Bible is silent on the issue of flowering plants.
AFAIK a fruit tree equates to a flowering plant - fruit grows from the fertilised flower/blossom.
Gman wrote:
touchingcloth wrote:I'm not sure the distinction you're trying to make of asah translating as "made" rather than "created" (I did a bit of googling and the definitions of asah I found covered a whole range of terms that could loosely be translated as "brought into being" or "caused to be").
In short, are you saying that G.1:1 says (to crudely paraphrase) "God created everything" and then the following verses give a synopsis of that creation, in no particular order? Or are you saying that there is an order of creation that can be inferred in G.1?
What I'm saying is that "Hashamayim we ha' erets" consistently refers to the totality of the physical universe. The stars, the sun, light, the moon, etc...
OK. So "Hashamayim we ha' erets" (That's from G.1:1, right? Sorry, my Hebrew is a little rusty ;)) refers to life as well?
If it does refer to the totality of the universe (with verses like G.1:16 just to reiterate that it happened in the past) can any sequence be read into G.1, or is it just a case of reading it as "In 6 days everything was made...and here's a list in no particular order"?

Re: The scientific proof for Genesis

Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2009 2:37 pm
by Gman
touchingcloth wrote:AFAIK a fruit tree equates to a flowering plant - fruit grows from the fertilised flower/blossom.
Again, the Bible is silent on the issue..
touchingcloth wrote:OK. So "Hashamayim we ha' erets" (That's from G.1:1, right? Sorry, my Hebrew is a little rusty ;)) refers to life as well?
If it does refer to the totality of the universe (with verses like G.1:16 just to reiterate that it happened in the past) can any sequence be read into G.1, or is it just a case of reading it as "In 6 days everything was made...and here's a list in no particular order"?
Not sure what the problem is here. Where in the Bible does it ever say that life was created on earth in Genesis 1:1?

Re: The scientific proof for Genesis

Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2009 2:52 pm
by touchingcloth
Gman wrote:
touchingcloth wrote:AFAIK a fruit tree equates to a flowering plant - fruit grows from the fertilised flower/blossom.
Again, the Bible is silent on the issue..
touchingcloth wrote:OK. So "Hashamayim we ha' erets" (That's from G.1:1, right? Sorry, my Hebrew is a little rusty ;)) refers to life as well?
If it does refer to the totality of the universe (with verses like G.1:16 just to reiterate that it happened in the past) can any sequence be read into G.1, or is it just a case of reading it as "In 6 days everything was made...and here's a list in no particular order"?
Not sure what the problem is here. Where in the Bible does it ever say that life was created on earth in Genesis 1:1?
I'm still trying to understand your point about "Hashamayim we ha' erets". Was everything created in all at once or is there an order that can be divined from G.1?
(If there is an order implied then the bible gets it wrong, because it has - amongst other errors - fruit trees before insects).

Re: The scientific proof for Genesis

Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2009 3:14 pm
by Gman
touchingcloth wrote: I'm still trying to understand your point about "Hashamayim we ha' erets". Was everything created in all at once or is there an order that can be divined from G.1?
(If there is an order implied then the bible gets it wrong, because it has - amongst other errors - fruit trees before insects).
I don't know how to better explain it... Good luck.

Re: The scientific proof for Genesis

Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 3:04 pm
by CAT
Gman if what you say is true about Genesis being correct (which you have successfully proved), than you need to seriously consider that each day (1-7) are actual 24 hour days as plainly stated within the Hebrew text itself.

You cannot have one foot in the Church and the other in the world... you serve either G-d or man, which is it?

Re: The scientific proof for Genesis

Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 3:16 pm
by touchingcloth
CAT wrote:Gman if what you say is true about Genesis being correct (which you have successfully proved), than you need to seriously consider that each day (1-7) are actual 24 hour days as plainly stated within the Hebrew text itself.
You're absolutely right - the Gman scientifically proved it beyond any hint of a shadow of a doubt.

Re: The scientific proof for Genesis

Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 8:35 pm
by zoegirl
CAT wrote:Gman if what you say is true about Genesis being correct (which you have successfully proved), than you need to seriously consider that each day (1-7) are actual 24 hour days as plainly stated within the Hebrew text itself.

You cannot have one foot in the Church and the other in the world... you serve either G-d or man, which is it?
the Hebrew text allows for different meanings of the word Yom. check out the main page for explanations.

We serve God, Cat, but we look to His creation as a testimony as well as His word.

By examining His creation, we are still serving Him.

Re: The scientific proof for Genesis

Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 9:16 pm
by Gman
touchingcloth wrote:
CAT wrote:Gman if what you say is true about Genesis being correct (which you have successfully proved), than you need to seriously consider that each day (1-7) are actual 24 hour days as plainly stated within the Hebrew text itself.

You cannot have one foot in the Church and the other in the world... you serve either G-d or man, which is it?
You're absolutely right - the Gman scientifically proved it beyond any hint of a shadow of a doubt.
First what God are we talking about here.. The Bible says that there are two. Second, I never used the words "without any hint of a shadow of a doubt." I was referring to the correlation between science and the Bible..

Re: The scientific proof for Genesis

Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 8:32 am
by CAT
the Hebrew text allows for different meanings of the word Yom. check out the main page for explanations.
Zoe, I'd like you to point this out to me if you would please?

Correction on your part the word DAY in Hebrew, which is the Hebrew word “yom“, individually indicates a twenty four (24) hour period of time. It is used exactly 2301 times throughout the entire Old Testament and in every instance it is always used in a singular way. But along with this you should also note that in the 6 days of creation G-d repeated the saying “and the evening and the morning were the first day” six times. The obvious reason for it being repeated over and over again was because G-d purposefully wanted to get His point across. This is because in foresight He knew the evolutionist would try and harm the reputation of it. Genesis 1:5, 8,13,23,31 - And G-d called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. Additionally, you should also notice that each one of the creation days has a numerical number attached to it, namely day 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and lastly the 7th day. And every time it is associated to in Genesis it means a 24 hour period that is noted by “evening and morning“, which is one cycle of the earths rotation in reference to the fixed path of our sun. All of this is to show us that G-d was not just talking about a prolonged (long-drawn-out) time period, but about one days revolution of the earths rotation around our sun.

Shedding even more truth to a single day… is the Hebrew word for a full seven days which is the Hebrew word “shabuwa”. This word is found in Genesis 2 as well as Leviticus 12:5 and virtually the whole Old Testament when it refers to the word “week“.

So it's not purely that the word “yom” is used six different times in Genesis, but it is also the word “shabuw” that defines a seven day period.
We serve God, Cat, but we look to His creation as a testimony as well as His word. By examining His creation, we are still serving Him.
Fair enough Zoe, but if you go on to believe that these were not actual 24 hour days that than opens the door to “evolution” and you are being deceived. Changing the word of G-d turns it into a doctrine of devils.
First what God are we talking about here.. The Bible says that there are two. Second, I never used the words "without any hint of a shadow of a doubt." I was referring to the correlation between science and the Bible..
Gman, you have me stumped, what two gods are you talking about? Yes, I realize that you were referring to the link between science and the Bible, which you proved nicely, thank you. I was merely just pointing the fact out to you that "NOW" (after you have proved this fact) you cannot simply go on believing that these 7 days took place over million or billions of years, that it why I said you cannot serve both G-d and man, its either one or the other. If you change G-d's literal word into something that it is not, you are than serving man.

Re: The scientific proof for Genesis

Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 10:01 am
by touchingcloth
CAT wrote: Gman, you have me stumped, what two gods are you talking about? Yes, I realize that you were referring to the link between science and the Bible, which you proved nicely, thank you. I was merely just pointing the fact out to you that "NOW" (after you have proved this fact) you cannot simply go on believing that these 7 days took place over million or billions of years, that it why I said you cannot serve both G-d and man, its either one or the other. If you change G-d's literal word into something that it is not, you are than serving man.
I'd imagine Gman is referring to Elohim and Yahweh (correct me if I'm wrong, Gman).
How comes you keep putting a - instead of an o in god?

Re: The scientific proof for Genesis

Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:54 pm
by zoegirl
CAT,

check out the main site pages, specifically

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth ... DADa4V462l