No0ne
 
Reply Fri 8 Aug, 2008 04:58 pm
The Book of Genesis.
Section-1

Title. First day: Light diffused

1:3- And God said, let there be light: and there was light.

1:4- And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

1:5- And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and morning were the fist day.

_____________________________________________________________

The main miss-understanding is the word "light" is the word "day", so every "day" is a new kind of "light".
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,142 • Replies: 13
No top replies

 
Wouldukindly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Aug, 2008 07:29 pm
@No0ne,
I've commented on this to various religious groups(anyone who shows up on my door) describing how the Genesis myth has mysterious connections to Big Bang and evolutionist theory. I could just be seeing things, or pulling at hairs to make religion seem more logical, but it seems that if some form of higher being was attempting to describe creation to a bunch of humans, it would be far simpler to make an abstract symbolist story rather then explain the whole thing(God:"So anyway, after the stars and the sun were formed..." Human:"So wait, why is the Sun bigger then the stars then?" G:"Well, in reality stars come in all shapes and sizes, but the Sun is closer so it appears to be bigger" H:"So it is somehow placed closer to us in the sky?" G: "Well technically its more we're closer to the Sun." H:"..." G: *sigh*"The earth rotates around the Sun, okay? Kind of like, umm, this rock, it travels around this other rock..." H: "But that rock is round, and the earth is flat" *long pause from God* G: "I made it in seven days, ok? I just did, in this order...")

Small note is that most of the groups I mention this two begin to deny any connection between God and science. And we wonder why the gap is getting wider...
Zetetic11235
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Aug, 2008 07:55 pm
@Wouldukindly,
It simply allows for belief in christianity to be cohesive with science. That is an old argument, but it does not persuade an atheist because it is only applicable to believers. I have long held the position that science in no way must conflict with biblical assertions when they are interpreted in a specific way. Many do not understand this or are at least ignorant of it, prefering their own dogmas and presumptions.

Religion can be totally innocuous in respect to scientific inquiry when even taken literally with clever dissection of terms as it is often so vague. The problem comes in when old dogmas of organized religion which are in no way tied inseperably to the biblical writings interfere with scientific progress and atheist/agnostic freedom of belief.

While my convictions are along the agnostic bent, I respect the freedom of belief and understand that many religious practicioners are totally inocuous and in no way does religious belief necessarily impede progress.
No0ne
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2008 12:55 pm
@Zetetic11235,
Yes, mainly the only part that I support is the fact that the word light mean's "day"

So the second "day" would speak of the second "light" which is the light of water.

Each of the six "day's" are the six group's of light that was defined within the past.

(I've removed a section of the first post due to more thought that I have put into it.)
Master Pangloss
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2008 07:13 pm
@No0ne,
Notice the inconsistency in this story though, which I think more interesting.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.......

14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights-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 expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning-the fourth day....

According to this story, God creates light on the first day. Yet he does not create any stars until the forth day. From where does the "first day" light come from if there are no heavenly bodies to produce it? This is a scientifically delinquent, mythological/religious text. Nothing more.
urangutan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Aug, 2008 07:01 am
@Master Pangloss,
I cannot believe you are arguing such a frivillous point Master Pangloss. When God said, Let there be light; One , who was he talking too, as there was no life until the latter days and two sound came long after the light, so what is saying. Having said that, all that God had to do was turn from the source of the light to say that there was darkness. Light does not only come from the stars, although if you believe trully in the formation of the scientific universe all things come from the stars, life included, which in turn made an artificial light. Were the creators of this artificial light, athiests or at least agnostics so we can argue that it wasn't God at all or were they God fearing religious nut jobs who claim they were only doing Gods work anyway.
0 Replies
 
No0ne
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Aug, 2008 01:02 pm
@Master Pangloss,
Master Pangloss wrote:
Notice the inconsistency in this story though, which I think more interesting.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.......

14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights-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 expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning-the fourth day....

According to this story, God creates light on the first day. Yet he does not create any stars until the forth day. From where does the "first day" light come from if there are no heavenly bodies to produce it? This is a scientifically delinquent, mythological/religious text. Nothing more.


According to the story, God has said "light" is "day" hence making it the that light that the "god" made, the first "day".

So... according to the story "god" had created light, then called that light "day", hence since it was the first light ever made, it would be labled as "The First Day" AKA "The First Light".

So when the text speak's of "The Second Day" it speak's of "The Second Light"...

This also apply's to all "Six Day's"...
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Aug, 2008 06:30 pm
@No0ne,
Quote:
It simply allows for belief in christianity to be cohesive with science. That is an old argument, but it does not persuade an atheist because it is only applicable to believers. I have long held the position that science in no way must conflict with biblical assertions when they are interpreted in a specific way. Many do not understand this or are at least ignorant of it, prefering their own dogmas and presumptions.


Absolutely right. The power of mythos has been in steady decline since the Enlightenment - and the creation story in Genesis is mythos. More modern readers, unable to understand the role of myth in knowledge, and worried that their religious tradition is losing credibility in the face of science, which is logos, have attempted to convert the mythos into logos by reinterpreting the myth in a scientific way.

This sort of activity should not persuade atheists or believers.

The Bible is not a bunch of assertions. The Bible is mythology. It cannot conflict with science unless the reader has fundamental misunderstandings about the text - unless the reader does not understand the function of mythology.

Quote:
Religion can be totally innocuous in respect to scientific inquiry when even taken literally with clever dissection of terms as it is often so vague.


I disagree. If we read mythology literally, we are bound to see the mythology as being opposed to science - unless the writer was scientifically precise.

Quote:
The problem comes in when old dogmas of organized religion which are in no way tied inseperably to the biblical writings interfere with scientific progress and atheist/agnostic freedom of belief.


I think it's more a misunderstanding about the nature of the text by the modern religious reader. Including a misunderstanding of old dogmas by the modern religious individual.
Because of their misunderstanding, they come to see secular progress as a threat to their religious beliefs.

Quote:
While my convictions are along the agnostic bent, I respect the freedom of belief and understand that many religious practicioners are totally inocuous and in no way does religious belief necessarily impede progress.


I wish more of us were like this.

Quote:
According to this story, God creates light on the first day. Yet he does not create any stars until the forth day. From where does the "first day" light come from if there are no heavenly bodies to produce it? This is a scientifically delinquent, mythological/religious text. Nothing more.


Well, mythology has no use for scientific accuracy. They are entirely different methods of contemplation. To level scientific criticisms against a mythological text is to miss the point of the text by a hundred miles. Unfortunately, this is not uncommon.

But to play along - the Sun. Remember, the text is thousands of years old, predates the heliocentric model, ect. The Sun was not understood to be a star.

Again, this scientific inaccuracy is irrelevant to the mythology.
0 Replies
 
Master Pangloss
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Aug, 2008 06:56 pm
@No0ne,
urangutan - First of all, my point is not frivolous. It is a legitimate observation, which you never contradicted. Second of all, as for the majority of your post, I have no idea what you're talking about. I honestly don't understand almost everything you said. But I will correct you on this - stars are the only luminous objects (that we know of) in the universe. Nothing else produces light. Other bodies merely reflect light.

NoOne - This is quite a little word game you playing. Are you sugggesting that the terms "light" and "day" in the text are interchangable? That is, that they mean the same thing? If so, then all your work is ahead of you. And if so, to what end?
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Aug, 2008 07:05 pm
@Master Pangloss,
Quote:
First of all, my point is not frivolous.


Actually, it kinda is. You're using scientific criticism against mythology. Will you next criticize Homer by pointing out that cyclops do not, and never have, existed?
Master Pangloss
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Aug, 2008 07:28 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
Actually, it kinda is. You're using scientific criticism against mythology. Will you next criticize Homer by pointing out that cyclops do not, and never have, existed?


I can't believe I'm actually hearing this! Homer and the Bible are not even close to the same animal, because Homer experts make no attempts to defend his mythology as scientific fact. However, the Christian apologist does. There is world of difference there. This whole "light=day" argument is an attept to legitimize a mythological text in order to justify one's belief in it. This is what apologists do. It is the apologist who takes his faith to the level of scientific analyisis, not me. I am simply holding him acountable to play by his own rules. So no, my point is STILL NOT FRIVOLOUS.
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Aug, 2008 07:38 pm
@Master Pangloss,
Quote:
I can't believe I'm actually hearing this! Homer and the Bible are not even close to the same animal, because Homer experts make no attempts to defend his mythology as scientific fact. However, the Christian apologist does.


Do you not recall the religious opposition to Socrates? They didn't just make arguments, they killed the man.

Some Christian apologists do attempt to defend mythology as scientific fact. However, this is not always the case. We cannot level a criticism against an entire faith tradition when the criticism only applies to a portion of the faith tradition's adherents. Many Christian apologists argue against defending myth as scientific fact.

Quote:
It is the apologist who takes his faith to the level of scientific analyisis, not me. I am simply holding him acountable to play by his own rules. So no, my point is STILL NOT FRIVOLOUS.


Like I said, not all apologists do this, and the one's who do are misguided. Equating mythology with science misses the point - no matter if your an apologist or a critic of religion, the mistake is still a mistake.
0 Replies
 
Aedes
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Aug, 2008 11:25 am
@Master Pangloss,
Master Pangloss wrote:
stars are the only luminous objects (that we know of) in the universe. Nothing else produces light.
Ever seen molten lava? It incandesces, i.e. it produces light by virtue of the excitation of valence electrons. This has nothing to do even with solar energy, let alone stars. We may not be able to see volcanos erupting on other planets, but stars are NOT the only luminous objects in the universe.
0 Replies
 
iconoclast
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Sep, 2008 04:30 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Quote:
More modern readers, unable to understand the role of myth in knowledge, and worried that their religious tradition is losing credibility in the face of science, which is logos, have attempted to convert the mythos into logos by reinterpreting the myth in a scientific way.


Ah, Didymos, we come back to the old logical flaw. How many times have I said - 'not necessarily'?

and again:

Quote:
Some Christian apologists do attempt to defend mythology as scientific fact. However, this is not always the case. We cannot level a criticism against an entire faith tradition when the criticism only applies to a portion of the faith tradition's adherents.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The First Day
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 02/04/2023 at 12:57:10