Data wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 9:55 am
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2023 11:01 am
Now the claim is the sun and moon and all the other planets and stars were made after there had been daylight and evening for three days already.
Explain how that works, without Interpreting by inventing stuff it doesn't say, rewriting it or denial of science, the Bible and everything. Off you go.
The Hebrew verb consists of two different states. The perfect state indicates an action which is complete, whereas the imperfect state indicates a continuous or incomplete action.
At Genesis 1:1 the word bara, translated as created, is in the perfect state, which means that at this point the creation of the heavens and the Earth were completed. Later, as in verse 16 the Hebrew word asah, translated as made, is used, which is in the imperfect state, indicating continuous action. The heavens and Earth were created in verse 1 and an indeterminate time later they were being prepared for habitation, much the same as a bed is manufactured (complete) and made (continuous) afterwards.
The Hebrew waiyaas (proceeded to make), from asah, in verse 16 is different than bara (create) in verses 1, 21 and 27. Asah is the imperfect state indicating progressive action. The luminaries as part of the heavens had already been completed in verse 1, but now they were visible on Earth and prepared for their intended use. Asah can mean make, or appoint (Deuteronomy 15:1), establish (2 Samuel 7:11), form (Jeremiah 18:4), or prepare (Genesis 21:8).
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2023 11:01 am
When you've done with that, you could try explaining how Matthew says that Joseph and his family (who clearly intended to return to Judea but were told to go somewhere else and picked Nazareth, when Luke says they lived there and went back after the birth ceremonies.
Explain this. With scriptural reference. Think it through supporting your conclusions with chapter and verse. Though what that has to do with science, I can't see.
That looks like total garbage to me. Genesis 1 sets out the creation events in chronological order, each on a separate day, marked by morning and evening. Right from day 1. (1)
The sun and moon and other skylights were created later on as God thought they would be good markers for passage of time. Thus the daylight was there before the sun was. So the Bible says.
One either accepts science (and logic, too) that the sun had to be there to cause day and night or one goes into total science denial, or as our pal and mod. above does, pass it off as metaphor, it seems,' which means not reliable as recorded fact - like the rest of the Bible.
All your tinkering about with semantics doesn't alter the facts of what the Bible plainly says.
You appear to be trying to smuggle in the 'cloud cover' excuse while not being too explicit about it, which suggests that you know it's a bad argument.
You know - the sun and stars were there causing daylight, but they couldn't be seen for some reason (an ice 'shell' or cloud cover, or maybe just God magicked it that way.
But there's the thing. Couldn't be seen by whom? Nobody was there but God and his heavenly minions. The writer had to be told by God what had happened. Why would God say what it would appear like if someone was there, when he could have scored a triumph by explaining the correct events before science had worked it out?
Instead we get the usual science debunks the Bible, just as it does Jericho, Tyre, the Flood and Ark by all reason, the Nativities....and most of the rest of the Book.
Scriptural reference in Nativity? Glad to. I could actually give the quote instead of the ref. but that won't change anything.
Luke 2.4 Joseph left Nazareth in Galilee to 'enrol' or 'register' in Bethlehem.
Matthew 2. 1 Jesus is born in Bethlehem. It does not say that they travelled there from Nazareth and as we shall see the hadn't, according to Matthew.
Luke 2.39.After the birth rites in the Temple, they return to their own city, Nazareth. It says.
But Matthew says they fled to Egypt (it looks like around two years after the birth, too, but that's aside). and after Herod had died Joseph reckoned it was safe to return. Now my Bible says "The return to Nazareth"
which flags up the popular lie, because they plainly intended to return to Judea where they lived. Joseph became worried when he heard that Herod's son was now ruling Judea and moreover was warned in a dream to go to Galilee (Where another son of Herod ruled, but Matthew wasn't bothered by that if he even knew).
Plainly they did not already live there and (Matt. 2.23) he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth. (which probably didn't exist as a city at that time, anyway) and plainly the evidence is that so far as Matthew is concerned, Bethlehem in Judea is where Joseph and Mary had lived until they relocated to Galilee.
This is not something it says, but is the deductive reasoning of what it says. Now you show me where I'm wrong in my conclusions. It is not so much science that debunks the Bible but evidence and reason. I see History as science, too, but science does its'share of debunk.
(1) Ehad yowm, seni yowm, selisi yown first, second and third day, is it not?
