Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Literal Genesis 1:3

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
    Oy gevalt!

    That's NOT what I'm asking for at all!!!!

    I want a YEC Genesis literalist to tell me what it means to them. And hopefully this meaning will be as unambiguous as possible. After that we can proceed through the rest of the Genesis 1 story, grabbing the "literal" reading and then explore what the big beef is with modern science - "Science falsely so-called."

    So, Truthseeker --- what does Ge 1:3 mean to you? Or don't you care?

    You brought up the Big Bang -- It didn't. And by what authority on Earth or Heaven can you say that God didn't have a "hand" in it? The creation proceeds as per God's "spoken" word. It appears that the eretz and the mayyim and perhaps even the shamayim are commanded to do the creating.

    Please don't try to read my mind. If you have opinions - exegetically or scientifically, express them as your own.

    K54
    I am not YEC. If pressed, I would say I'm OE, but add that I'm not sure.


    I guess you don't want my opinions.
    The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

    [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
      I am not YEC. If pressed, I would say I'm OE, but add that I'm not sure.


      I guess you don't want my opinions.
      Your opinions did NOT address my question!

      You assumed I was trying to imply the Big Bang in a Deistic way. You or I have no idea how much "God's Hand" is in it.

      Now, YECs -- please! What does Ge 1:3 mean to YOU? And is this meaning a "simple reading" or your interpretation?

      K54

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
        Your opinions did NOT address my question!

        You assumed I was trying to imply the Big Bang in a Deistic way. You or I have no idea how much "God's Hand" is in it.

        Now, YECs -- please! What does Ge 1:3 mean to YOU? And is this meaning a "simple reading" or your interpretation?

        K54
        I'm not a YEC, either. But no YECs seem to be responding. Maybe if I tell you how I think a YEC interprets verse 3, someone like Jorge will actually join in to set us all straight?

        1) "and God said"--I think most YECs would agree with most OECs that this is not literal speech, transmitted from a literal mouth through vibration of air molecules. Rather, it means that God determined, decided, or decreed to do something.

        2) "let there be light" (or "let light be")--this is what God determined, decided, or decreed that He would do. I think most YECs would say that electromagnetic radiation did not exist yet. Maybe because Maxwell's equations didn't "work" yet? Or maybe because there was no matter to emit light? Or maybe they haven't thought through this question deeply enough to determine the reason?

        3) "and there was light" (or "and light was")--I think most YECs would say that light was created instantly as soon as God made His declaration. They would reject the various Day-Age views that ascribe this either to:
        A) the end of the "dark ages" of the early universe, when temperatures were so high that he universe was an ionized plasma which did not allow electromagnetic propagation, or
        B) the change of earth's atmosphere from opaque to translucent, allowing light to strike the earth.

        OK, Jorge or others, how can you help clarify or correct my understanding of YEC?
        "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

        Comment


        • #34
          Edited by a Moderator
          Moderated By: rogue06


          The OP starter requested that you do not post in his thread. Any further posts on your part will result in official warnings and/or infractions. You may start your own thread dealing with this topic if you so desire

          ***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
          Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

          Last edited by rogue06; 07-20-2014, 07:55 PM.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
            I'm not a YEC, either. But no YECs seem to be responding. Maybe if I tell you how I think a YEC interprets verse 3, someone like Jorge will actually join in to set us all straight?

            1) "and God said"--I think most YECs would agree with most OECs that this is not literal speech, transmitted from a literal mouth through vibration of air molecules. Rather, it means that God determined, decided, or decreed to do something.

            2) "let there be light" (or "let light be")--this is what God determined, decided, or decreed that He would do. I think most YECs would say that electromagnetic radiation did not exist yet. Maybe because Maxwell's equations didn't "work" yet? Or maybe because there was no matter to emit light? Or maybe they haven't thought through this question deeply enough to determine the reason?

            3) "and there was light" (or "and light was")--I think most YECs would say that light was created instantly as soon as God made His declaration. They would reject the various Day-Age views that ascribe this either to:
            A) the end of the "dark ages" of the early universe, when temperatures were so high that he universe was an ionized plasma which did not allow electromagnetic propagation, or
            B) the change of earth's atmosphere from opaque to translucent, allowing light to strike the earth.

            OK, Jorge or others, how can you help clarify or correct my understanding of YEC?
            Thanks, KB!

            #1 is reasonable.

            #2 If "light" is meant in the modern sense, this implies planning for a future state (as per e.g., "Days of Proclamation") -- I'd be surprised if many or any YEC ascribed to this. If light doesn't refer to EM, then it's a metaphor or an ANE understanding. -- Neither of which appeal to a YEC.

            #3 is again problematic literally if they also reject #3A and #3B.

            Yes, perhaps JF can straighten us out indeed! The only YEC who answered so far simply restated the question.

            K54

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
              If I were grading this as a student's essay exam answer, you'd get 0/10 points for simply restating the question.

              What IS the "plain" reading of "Let there be light"?

              And if I parse this correctly, you're asserting that "said" is anthropomorphic "for our benefit". So it's not really speech in the sense of sound waves but in fact a metaphor for Elohim's creative power?



              Ok, so far 0/1 for the literal reading of "light".

              K54

              You asked for a literal reading and that is what you got. Your opinion of it is mute. From the arrangement of the OP you leave no other answer available that would be considered literal. Apparently your not sufficient to grade a student or to post a legitimate question, as the question is answered in the asking of the question. Any other answer will become circular once it steps outside of the contents of Gen. 1:3.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Mr. Anderson View Post
                You asked for a literal reading and that is what you got. Your opinion of it is mute. From the arrangement of the OP you leave no other answer available that would be considered literal. Apparently your not sufficient to grade a student or to post a legitimate question, as the question is answered in the asking of the question. Any other answer will become circular once it steps outside of the contents of Gen. 1:3.
                So you can't answer. You have no physical reading of Ge 1:3. Good.

                It's fascinating that you use circularity in the original response AND the explanation of the original response. That takes some talent.

                Apparently you don't know what "literal" means.

                The whole point here to show the YEC literal reading that contradicts modern science. If you can't do it, then just say you can't. Or better yet, say it's a mystery.

                K54

                P.S. It's "MOOT", not "MUTE".
                Last edited by klaus54; 07-20-2014, 08:51 PM.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                  So you can't answer. You have no physical reading of Ge 1:3. Good.

                  It's fascinating that you use circularity in the original response AND the explanation of the original response. That takes some talent.

                  Apparently you don't know what "literal" means.

                  The whole point here to show the YEC literal reading that contradicts modern science. If you can't do it, then just say you can't. Or better yet, say it's a mystery.

                  K54

                  P.S. It's "MOOT", not "MUTE".
                  Any answer that a YEC gives that steps outside the literal reading of the text becomes something else than literal. If it is explained as natural it can no longer be the literal reading of the text. Which literally only means that light is attributable to God. When a YEC answers you with a natural explanation for the text he becomes you and the conversation with yourself will become circular. You're OP and your question are moot. Yes that does look better. And since this thread and the question posed in it are moot there is nothing literal to the text about it.If you want to argue with YEC people leave the texts out of it, there not representing the text.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Mr. Anderson View Post
                    Any answer that a YEC gives that steps outside the literal reading of the text becomes something else than literal. If it is explained as natural it can no longer be the literal reading of the text. Which literally only means that light is attributable to God. When a YEC answers you with a natural explanation for the text he becomes you and the conversation with yourself will become circular. You're OP and your question are moot. Yes that does look better. And since this thread and the question posed in it are moot there is nothing literal to the text about it.If you want to argue with YEC people leave the texts out of it, there not representing the text.
                    So what's the literal reading of the text? You DO understand what literal means, don't you?

                    The red highlighted text implies that "light" is not physical? Is this correct?

                    BTW, the bolded sentence is gibberish. Translation, please?

                    K54

                    P.S. Perhaps you should ask someone in spiritual authority for help, e.g. your pastor or your Sunday school teacher.
                    Last edited by klaus54; 07-21-2014, 02:06 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      So far all I've got are (paraphrased) "literal means literal", "plain means plain", "simple means simple", "It's God's light", ...

                      Of course the one guy who answered doesn't seem to be much of theologian or scientist. Or even understand what "literal" means.

                      Perhaps when a YEC responds he/she can be specific about the definition of "literal" or "plain" or "straightforward" or "direct"?

                      I mean this is IMPORTANT stuff in the YEC/OEC/TE/AE discussion. We have science on one side and what on the other? If a YEC can't specify the "what" then the debate is over -- both scientifically AND Biblically.

                      I'm hoping some YEC can do better.

                      Exegesis with a compass instead of a pencil is fruitless.

                      K54

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                        So far all I've got are (paraphrased) "literal means literal", "plain means plain", "simple means simple", "It's God's light", ...

                        Of course the one guy who answered doesn't seem to be much of theologian or scientist. Or even understand what "literal" means.

                        Perhaps when a YEC responds he/she can be specific about the definition of "literal" or "plain" or "straightforward" or "direct"?

                        I mean this is IMPORTANT stuff in the YEC/OEC/TE/AE discussion. We have science on one side and what on the other? If a YEC can't specify the "what" then the debate is over -- both scientifically AND Biblically.

                        I'm hoping some YEC can do better.

                        Exegesis with a compass instead of a pencil is fruitless.

                        K54
                        I see Jorge is back.

                        Perchance he could clear this up?

                        K54

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          I am puzzled. This forum is Natural Science. You demand that a YEC give a literal reading of Genesis 1:3, but there's no more science in that than in this passage: "Santa Klaus said, 'I'm going to switch on the lights in a few minutes. That will be your signal to leave the premises.' At 9:30.556 Zulu time, the room suddenly blazed with light. Slippery Jam ran."
                          The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                          [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                            I am puzzled. This forum is Natural Science. You demand that a YEC give a literal reading of Genesis 1:3, but there's no more science in that than in this passage: "Santa Klaus said, 'I'm going to switch on the lights in a few minutes. That will be your signal to leave the premises.' At 9:30.556 Zulu time, the room suddenly blazed with light. Slippery Jam ran."
                            I'm puzzled since I responded to this post but the response didn't show up.

                            Au contraire, this thread is exceedingly apropos this forum since Biblical Scientific Creationists claim their reading of Genesis trumps the body of science whose most logical and consilient interpretation is Deep Time/History/Evolution,

                            So why not ask for their literal physical reading of Genesis, starting with "light" in Ge 1:3?

                            BTW, are you a Christadelphian? You seem to be hinting at a "Days of Proclamation" interpretation where Elohim plans and "speaks" then creation eventually unwinds.

                            And, are you saying there is no scientific definition of "light" when Elohim speaks "Let there be Light"?

                            I do wish Jorge were here to clarify this whole matter.

                            One of the reasons I'm not a YEC is that their "reading" of Genesis is ambiguous or not specified at all. Yet they arrogantly assert the "plain reading" suffices to overturn e.g., "mountains" of geologic evidence.

                            But what IS this plain reading?

                            Do you get it now, TS?

                            K54

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                              I do wish Jorge were here to clarify this whole matter.
                              I can imagine his answer.

                              "I HAVE ALREADY EXPLAINED THIS TO YOU [insert ad hominem attack here]; I won't bother to provide links, BUT I HAVE, so THERE [insert ad hominem attack here]. Now GO AWAY or I'll taunt you a SECOND TIME. [insert ad hominem attack here] "
                              Last edited by Duragizer; 07-21-2014, 11:25 PM.
                              "When the Western world accepted Christianity, Caesar conquered; and the received text of Western theology was edited by his lawyers…. The brief Galilean vision of humility flickered throughout the ages, uncertainly…. But the deeper idolatry, of the fashioning of God in the image of the Egyptian, Persian, and Roman imperial rulers, was retained. The Church gave unto God the attributes which belonged exclusively to Caesar."

                              — Alfred North Whitehead

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                                I believe you mean Young Earth literalists. I believe in a literal understanding of Genesis and I am Old Earth Creationist.
                                You either (1) have an ad hoc definition of the word "literal" or, (2) have not yet realized that a "literal understanding of Genesis" and "Old Earth Creationist" stand in opposition. It's (1) or (2) - which is it? By the way, I presume you are aware that you cannot take Genesis - or any other Book in the Bible - in isolation from the others.

                                Jorge

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by rogue06, 09-18-2021, 08:59 AM
                                19 responses
                                92 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 09-15-2021, 11:13 AM
                                23 responses
                                86 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 09-14-2021, 07:34 AM
                                1 response
                                18 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by shunyadragon, 09-13-2021, 09:25 PM
                                13 responses
                                72 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by lee_merrill, 09-06-2021, 09:40 PM
                                19 responses
                                107 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X