Story of creation: Genesis.

[Cerebrum123]

Very honest, no manufacturing conflict, and historical as far as how the universe was viewed by Christians for 1500 years after Christ. Historically the Christian view was the earth was the center of the universe as firstfloor's reference indicated, and it was less then 10,000 years old. Roman philosopher Leucretius was right, but the justification for his view had to wait more then 1600+ years to be confirmed.

Your accusations of trolling are self inflicting.

None of this has to do with the description given in Genesis. It doesn't have an exact description of size, all that it says is that the heavens are "vast". Again, you are making a conflict where none exists.

[shunyadragon]

More to follow . . .

[shunyadragon]

None of this has to do with the description given in Genesis. It doesn't have an exact description of size, all that it says is that the heavens are "vast". Again, you are making a conflict where none exists.

Where does it say the Heavens are vast?

[firstfloor]

Where does it say the Heavens are vast?

A couple or three translations of Genesis 2:1 has "vast array" instead of "all their host". Paula Fredriksen explains the Ptolemaic cosmos pretty well in a couple of her lectures. Earth at the centre was the worst place to be.

[shunyadragon]

A couple or three translations of Genesis 2:1 has "vast array" instead of "all their host". Paula Fredriksen explains the Ptolemaic cosmos pretty well in a couple of her lectures. Earth at the centre was the worst place to be.

Most translate it as all their host (multitude). Even in this context, 'vast array' (which is the least favored translation) would be numeric 'vast,' and not vastness of the universe.

[Jedidiah]

Perhaps if you stopped trying the read the Genesis account as if it was an attempt at a modern scientific description of creation - which it isn't - you might not find so much fault with it.

I think the point of the account is to show God as supreme, Creator and Maker of all - perhaps as a counterpart to contemporary creation myths.

[Jedidiah]

The problem with Genesis is that it was believed literally by Orthodox Christianity for most of it's history, and the problematic controversy of it's literal 'truth' was only confronted by the progress of 'secular' scientific knowledge. A sizable number if not most Christians in the USA, and many Muslims still believe in a literal Genesis.

snip

The problems of a literal Genesis are overwhelming, including the relatively small size of our universe, and an awkward young scenario of the creation of our solar system.

The problem disappears if you remove infallibility from the adherents of "Orthodox (sic) Christianity for most of it's history." I do not see the faulty interpretation of Genesis by early Christian (or anyone else) as demonstrating a flaw in the Bible. The flaw is in the interpretation. I believe the Genesis account is literally true, but I also accept the data found by modern science. No problem.

[Jedidiah]

Where does it say the Heavens are vast?

Well the stars are uncountable. That is pretty vast. My question to you is where do you find in the Bible the idea that creation is small?

[MaxVel]

Actually the Genesis account can be and has been read as consistent with modern scientific description.

Yes. I wasn't denying that. However, the author of Genesis didn't ( I think) intend his account to be read as a 'scientific' one, so his focus is not so much on the details, in precise order, of the process, but on the who (God).

Agreed.

[JimL]

Where do you get the idea that the Genesis account relates to just this galaxy? Your time frame is okay, but how does that suggest our galaxy as opposed to everything as the account states?

Because that is the only inference that makes sense. They were writing a creation account, and that account was based upon what they thought they knew, and that which they thought they knew was wrong. Even the desciption of that they got chronologically wrong. For instance they had the earth being created before the sun. We know better now. We also know that a life giving planet like our own can't exist without previously existing suns which is where the life giving elements of the earth come from. But in their universe our galaxy was all they could see with the naked eye, and what they could see is what they believed to be all that there was.That galaxy was represented as the universe itself, having a dome surrounding it with nothing but water above the dome, not billions of other galaxies and billions of other solar systems that existed long before our own galaxy. BTW Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake by the church for suggesting the latter. The point being that the Genesis account is not true, so in what sense is it God inspired?

[shunyadragon]

Well the stars are uncountable. That is pretty vast. My question to you is where do you find in the Bible the idea that creation is small?

The description in Genesis of the separation of the waters below and the waters above as the firmament, and the Ptolemaic Cosmology of the time describe a relatively small finite cosmos with a fixed earth at the center. Aristotle also described a relatively small finite Cosmos of nine spheres. This is contrasted with the cosmos Leucretius described as an infinite cosmos of many stars and other worlds as vast beyond human comprehension, very much unlike the Biblical and Ptolemaic cosmology.

[shunyadragon]

The problem disappears if you remove infallibility from the adherents of "Orthodox (sic) Christianity for most of it's history." I do not see the faulty interpretation of Genesis by early Christian (or anyone else) as demonstrating a flaw in the Bible. The flaw is in the interpretation. I believe the Genesis account is literally true, but I also accept the data found by modern science. No problem.

Removing infallibility in Orthodox Christian history for ALL of it's history is a problem since through ALL of it's history the Bible is considered infallible by virtually ALL Christians in the past and most Christians in recent history. The literal interpretation as believed and understood in most history is terribly flawed. and it is a grand delusion that the evidence and science has no possible reasonable comparison. Accepting the data does not mean it is even reasonable.

[JimL]

Perhaps if you stopped trying the read the Genesis account as if it was an attempt at a modern scientific description of creation - which it isn't - you might not find so much fault with it.

Then lets just admit that the entire Genesis creation account, including Adam and Eve is a story, a fable, written by men and that there is no actual truth to it.

I think the point of the account is to show God as supreme, Creator and Maker of all - perhaps as a counterpart to contemporary creation myths.

Then in what sense does the biblical creation account differ from the creation myths. They are all stories pertaining to the beliefs held at the time.

[shunyadragon]

I can count the scientists that agree with Hugh Ross in the past 50 years using my fingers without taking off my shoes. By the peer review of the consensus of the scientific community Hugh Ross is grossly incompetent. This consensus is 99+% scientists that accept evolution, and contemporary cosmology, and this does not include Hugh Ross.

[JimL]

You are arguing an interpretation. The material that makes up the Sun would have been there with its Earth and its debris in orbit, along with all the other matter which makes of the solar system.

Thats true, but the sun is the first object to form from out of that debree, the planets forming afterward. Besides that we all know that the life giving elements of the earth are only there in the first place because it was formed of the elements that were created within pre-existing suns.