The Creation Account, Another Look

101G · Post by **101G** » Tue Jun 26, 2018 11:00 am

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Genesis 1:2 "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Let's discuss these two verses for starters. let's zero in on verse 2.

#1. Earth was a water ????????? do we really say planet? my question is, was earth a planet, as we define a planet, or not in the beginning. for the scripture stated, "WITHOUT FORM". so do we really identify earth as a planet in this beginning stage of development?

my second question, "was the sun actually shining, or was it even form yet. scripture stated, it was dark, no sunlight?. I have hear some scientist say the sun was formed but not yet shining, others, the sun formed but it was a thick cloud around the earth where no sunlight could penetrate to the surface.

for a general discussion we will start right at the beginning, with EARTH. I would like to hear the scientific side as well if any religious point of view.

thanks for your responses in advance.

Post by **DrNoGods** » Tue Jun 26, 2018 7:18 pm

[Replying to post 28 by 101G]

... and remember the moon formed around, or near the same time and it don't rotate.

The moon is tidally locked to the earth for reasons that are well understood, and that is why it doesn't rotate (now) on its axis. Here's another Wikipedia article explaining that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking

And yet another one explaining the earth's rotation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_rotation

What point are you trying to make with these simple questions? The OP asks only two questions, one of which has a clear answer (the sun was formed and "shining" before the earth formed), and the other is one of nomenclature but assumes the creation myth is factual.

Post by **DrNoGods** » Tue Jun 26, 2018 7:59 pm

[Replying to post 30 by 101G]

you don't have to be involved in the discussion. give up who are not scientist a chance to discuss the creation account.

OK ... I'm happy to stop wasting time on this subject as it is not a science issue and you don't seem to have any specific point for debate. But you did post it in the Science and Religion section of the forum, and are now asking for participation by people who aren't scientists so that the discussion of a bronze age myth can proceed without any pesky interference by science. Seems very out of place.

EPH2:8 · Post by **EPH2:8** » Tue Jun 26, 2018 8:06 pm

A quick web search can provide that answer:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day

And this seems consistent with the definition used by the humans who penned Genesis (1:5):

"And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Odd..when I use a dictionary I see it defined regarding the rotation of the earth on its axis. Is that unscientific?

EPH2:8 · Post by **EPH2:8** » Tue Jun 26, 2018 8:09 pm

Genesis literally describes a planet formed with day and night cycles before the very star it orbits is created. It describes the moon as a "light" in the same style as the sun (it's not). It says that seed and fruit bearing trees existed before the sun they would require to produce seeds and fruits. It says that fully formed animals were deposited on earth in the order of fish, birds, then a break for a new day, then livestock, crawling things, and "wild animals". It doesn't make any coherent sense at all.

Science doesn't agree with ANY of this. I can't believe I'm advocating it, but if you're going to believe in Genesis you'll have to take some sort of metaphorical or poetic approach like bluethread (which I also think is untrue but I can't argue from a scientific standpoint).

Genesis is not scientific. It is exactly what you would expect a bronze age culture to produce when they sat around a fire and tried to come up with a story of how things got to where they were at the moment. They didn't know what a star was, they didn't know what evolution was, they saw the animals and the landscape around them and did their best.

I will now move on to plant life before the sun. What is required for plants to exist?

Post by **DrNoGods** » Tue Jun 26, 2018 8:15 pm

[Replying to post 33 by EPH2:8]

Odd..when I use a dictionary I see it defined regarding the rotation of the earth on its axis. Is that unscientific?

Do we have one person here posting using two different names? In any case, the Wikipedia article I linked is consistent with a "day" being the result of the earth rotating on its axis. So not sure what your comment above means as your dictionary definition is perfectly consistent with the Wikipedia article. Neither are unscientific as the earth does, in fact, rotate on its axis making a full rotation in about 24 hours, which defines a "day." Nothing unscientific or inconsistent with any of this.

DeMotts · Post by **DeMotts** » Tue Jun 26, 2018 8:41 pm

[Replying to 101G]

101G I'm not sure you understand how this message board works. If you only want to correspond with one person then you should do it by private message. When you post a public message on a public message board the idea is that we all get to discuss it.

EPH2:8 · Post by **EPH2:8** » Tue Jun 26, 2018 10:18 pm

Do we have one person here posting using two different names? In any case, the Wikipedia article I linked is consistent with a "day" being the result of the earth rotating on its axis. So not sure what your comment above means as your dictionary definition is perfectly consistent with the Wikipedia article. Neither are unscientific as the earth does, in fact, rotate on its axis making a full rotation in about 24 hours, which defines a "day." Nothing unscientific or inconsistent with any of this.

It was asserted in a post that Genesis, and I quote, â€œliterally describes a planet formed with day and night cycles before the very star it orbits is created.â€� This statement is asserting Genesis does not align with science. If a day is defined as the earth rotating on its axis, please explain to me how you cannot have a day prior to the earth orbiting the sun?

DeMotts · Post by **DeMotts** » Tue Jun 26, 2018 10:33 pm

EPH2:8 wrote:I will now move on to plant life before the sun. What is required for plants to exist?

In the Calvin cycle used by fruit and seed bearing plants you will need: sunlight, carbon dioxide, and water, as well as the presence of nutrients like nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium.

EPH2:8 · Post by **EPH2:8** » Tue Jun 26, 2018 10:36 pm

Genesis literally describes a planet formed with day and night cycles before the very star it orbits is created. It describes the moon as a "light" in the same style as the sun (it's not). It says that seed and fruit bearing trees existed before the sun they would require to produce seeds and fruits. It says that fully formed animals were deposited on earth in the order of fish, birds, then a break for a new day, then livestock, crawling things, and "wild animals". It doesn't make any coherent sense at all.

Science doesn't agree with ANY of this. I can't believe I'm advocating it, but if you're going to believe in Genesis you'll have to take some sort of metaphorical or poetic approach like bluethread (which I also think is untrue but I can't argue from a scientific standpoint).

Genesis is not scientific. It is exactly what you would expect a bronze age culture to produce when they sat around a fire and tried to come up with a story of how things got to where they were at the moment. They didn't know what a star was, they didn't know what evolution was, they saw the animals and the landscape around them and did their best.

So far we see Genesis and science do align as the definition of a day is not reliant upon the earth orbiting the sun as you asserted. Shall we move onto your statement regarding the sun and the moon? I assume you are referring to

â€œAnd God said, â€œLet there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.â€� And it was so. 16 God made two great lightsâ€”the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earthâ€�

Just so weâ€™re on the same page I want to be clear this is what youâ€™re referring to as a scripture that is unscientific?

EPH2:8 · Post by **EPH2:8** » Tue Jun 26, 2018 10:39 pm

DeMotts wrote:
EPH2:8 wrote:I will now move on to plant life before the sun. What is required for plants to exist?
In the Calvin cycle used by fruit and seed bearing plants you will need: sunlight, carbon dioxide, and water, as well as the presence of nutrients like nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium.

Awesome thank you. Iâ€™m not avoiding the question here, just want to have a logical conversation with you and not try to debate multiple points at once. Iâ€™m doing his all from my phone with one arm (surgery) so itâ€™s a little more difficult for me to keep up. Nonetheless, what Iâ€™m saying is I just posted regarding your statement about the sun and moon. Letâ€™s handle that first as it came before your plant statement (I got ahead of myself) and then Iâ€™ll handle the plant statement.