8 ms·

I came to say that this changes everything since I thought the light came first. Still seemed relevant. (not trolling) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_there_b

by eapen 12y ago

I came to say that this changes everything since I thought the light came first. Still seemed relevant. (not trolling) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_there_be_light http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_there_be_light In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 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. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, and it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness.

mkaziz 12y ago
Your quote says that water was already there. :)
idlewords 12y ago
"And darkness was on the face of the deep". So in other words, the water was there before the light. Story checks out.
Cleanaxe 12y ago
Light was created on the first day, but the Sun was created on the fourth. And Genesis presents the Universe's primordial state as being just a watery mass, so water existed before both. Fun fact: Proverbs 8 identifies Wisdom as the first of God's works, hence the Judeo-Christian tradition of identifying Wisdom with light. http://www.esvbible.org/Proverbs+8/ http://www.esvbible.org/Proverbs+8/ The New Testament also identifies Jesus as both Wisdom and Light, despite Wisdom being female in Proverbs.
- sigzero 12y ago
  The last one, you are trying to find contradiction where there is none.
  - lotharbot 12y ago
    Among serious Christian circles it would be phrased as "learning that first century Jewish culture was different from ours and didn't react the same to certain concepts". They didn't see it as at all weird to identify Jesus with wisdom -- not because they were idiots or missed a blatant contradiction, but simply because they didn't have the same specific hangups we do. Likewise, Jesus identifying as a "hen gathering her chicks" in Matthew 23 wasn't a gender faux-pas.
    - coldtea 12y ago
      It's not a gender faux-pas now either in 99% of the world.
  - Cleanaxe 12y ago
    I'm not saying there's a contradiction, I just find it interesting.
- themodelplumber 12y ago
  >> And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. > Light was created on the first day, but the Sun was created on the fourth. Where does the Bible say the Sun was created on the fourth day? It doesn't appear in the KJV or JBS; is it written like that in another translation? > Proverbs 8 identifies Wisdom as the first of God's works Are you saying that you think this is a contradiction because Genesis says Light was created on the "first day?"
  - lotharbot 12y ago
    > "Where does the Bible say the Sun was created on the fourth day?" Genesis 1:14-18. Of particular interest, the text doesn't actually name "Sun" and "Moon". In stark contrast to the mythologies of many surrounding cultures, they're not treated as though they have any personality or volition. They're just lights; their only significance is that they're bright, and are the most prominent bright objects in the day and the night. (That may be the most scientifically revolutionary/remarkable thing about Genesis 1 -- it treats the entire physical universe as physical objects. This is also the most theologically revolutionary/remarkable things about Genesis 1 -- it doesn't merely say Elohim is better than the gods of other cultures, it says those gods are actually just plain ol' objects that do what they do because God designed them that way.)
    - themodelplumber 12y ago
      So I'm curious, which Christian sects think this means the Sun was literally created at that point? I am a Christian but I'm not all Christians, so that kind of reading is new to me and feels rather odd.
      - lotharbot 12y ago
        Christian Fundamentalism (which is a decidedly American/English sect, 100 years old this year) is the only sect I'm aware of that takes a hard-line literalist approach to Genesis 1, and even among them there's argument as to whether the sun is literally created at that time or if it becomes visible somehow. (That idea is fairly old -- I was just reading Aquinas' take on it, written in the 1200s: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.FP_Q70_A1.html http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.FP_Q70_A1.html ) Many Christian sects (historical and modern) don't view Genesis 1 as specific "points in time". There are various alternative theories -- Augustine (354-430 AD) suggests that creation of all six "days" worth of stuff was actually a single instantaneous event, and that the "days" might refer to the way God revealed creation to the "angelic mind", for example. One theory gaining more prominence is that the Genesis account parallels an older Egyptian account in a subversive way -- using the same structure (including the "days") but setting itself apart in the way it speaks about the details of God and creation (see https://bible.org/article/genesis-1-2-light-ancient-egyptian-creation-myths https://bible.org/article/genesis-1-2-light-ancient-egyptian... .) Viewed from this perspective, the "days" are just poetic structure and have nothing to do with the actual timing of creation.
negamax 12y ago
Inclination of religious people to prove their texts to be relevant in light of scientific discoveries is interesting trend. And I see it everywhere, in all religions. Have you heard of term scientific religion?
- krapp 12y ago
  What other choice can religious people make and still remain religious? It can't be the Word of God if it can be disproven, but of course the goalposts of interpretation can always be moved. I mean, it's no longer dogma that the universe is written on crystal spheres surrounding the perfect sphere of Earth, because it can't be... but Genesis is still vague enough that it can be handwaved to justify anything else science comes up with (until that has to be conceded to as well.)
  - jorangreef 12y ago
    If you want to disprove the Christian faith (faith in the historical person of Jesus Christ), then you need to make up your mind about the positive and negative historical sources concerning him, their closeness in time to him (historical distance), and the textual reliability of those sources. See Paul Barnett's "Jesus And The Logic Of History" for the historical method as applied to Jesus: http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-History-Studies-Biblical-Theology/dp/0830826033 http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-History-Studies-Biblical-Theolog...
    - krapp 12y ago
      I'm not interested in proving it or disproving it, but rather just pointing out that Christianity keeps disproving itself, particularly when it comes to interpreting something like Genesis as anything but an ancient fable. Using science to try to validate a creation myth thousands of years removed from its intended cultural and political context seems kind of absurd - and a lot of Christians would agree with me anyway, so it's not even that irreligious a point of view. I would argue this is neither good science nor good religion. Both should accept that the map is not the destination, and that although some models are momentarily useful, none are necessarily true. Genesis is a beautiful story which had a point and a purpose in its time and place but it didn't happen. We know it didn't happen because the evidence against its account is overwhelming (unless you reinterpret the account, but then there's no possible way the original Hebrews meant for the story to take into consideration fundamental truths about geology and astronomy which they had no concept of at the time.) That said though, I wish there could be a thread about these sorts of things without the incessant drive-by downvoting. Or at least without the censorship of the downvote mechanism.
scott_s 12y ago
I downvoted you because religious discussions are classic internet flamewar topics. We'd like to avoid those.
- lotharbot 12y ago
  "unless you have something genuinely new to say about them." (From the guidelines.)
  - scott_s 12y ago
    I contend that there is nothing genuinely new regarding religion in this thread. Also, religious discussion on science story submissions are off-topic, and almost guaranteed to turn into flamewars.
    - lotharbot 12y ago
      then you must have a remarkably deep education on this subject. I congratulate you. EDIT: in response to your well-timed edit -- there is not currently a flamewar going on. Discussing the intersection of religion and science can be a fast track to a flamewar in the wrong circumstances, but these are excellent circumstances for a reasoned discussion.

by eapen 12y ago

mkaziz 12y ago

Your quote says that water was already there. :)

idlewords 12y ago

"And darkness was on the face of the deep". So in other words, the water was there before the light. Story checks out.

Cleanaxe 12y ago

Light was created on the first day, but the Sun was created on the fourth. And Genesis presents the Universe's primordial state as being just a watery mass, so water existed before both. Fun fact: Proverbs 8 identifies Wisdom as the first of God's works, hence the Judeo-Christian tradition of identifying Wisdom with light. http://www.esvbible.org/Proverbs+8/ http://www.esvbible.org/Proverbs+8/ The New Testament also identifies Jesus as both Wisdom and Light, despite Wisdom being female in Proverbs.

sigzero 12y ago
The last one, you are trying to find contradiction where there is none.
- lotharbot 12y ago
  Among serious Christian circles it would be phrased as "learning that first century Jewish culture was different from ours and didn't react the same to certain concepts". They didn't see it as at all weird to identify Jesus with wisdom -- not because they were idiots or missed a blatant contradiction, but simply because they didn't have the same specific hangups we do. Likewise, Jesus identifying as a "hen gathering her chicks" in Matthew 23 wasn't a gender faux-pas.
  - coldtea 12y ago
    It's not a gender faux-pas now either in 99% of the world.
- Cleanaxe 12y ago
  I'm not saying there's a contradiction, I just find it interesting.
themodelplumber 12y ago
>> And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. > Light was created on the first day, but the Sun was created on the fourth. Where does the Bible say the Sun was created on the fourth day? It doesn't appear in the KJV or JBS; is it written like that in another translation? > Proverbs 8 identifies Wisdom as the first of God's works Are you saying that you think this is a contradiction because Genesis says Light was created on the "first day?"
- lotharbot 12y ago
  > "Where does the Bible say the Sun was created on the fourth day?" Genesis 1:14-18. Of particular interest, the text doesn't actually name "Sun" and "Moon". In stark contrast to the mythologies of many surrounding cultures, they're not treated as though they have any personality or volition. They're just lights; their only significance is that they're bright, and are the most prominent bright objects in the day and the night. (That may be the most scientifically revolutionary/remarkable thing about Genesis 1 -- it treats the entire physical universe as physical objects. This is also the most theologically revolutionary/remarkable things about Genesis 1 -- it doesn't merely say Elohim is better than the gods of other cultures, it says those gods are actually just plain ol' objects that do what they do because God designed them that way.)
  - themodelplumber 12y ago
    So I'm curious, which Christian sects think this means the Sun was literally created at that point? I am a Christian but I'm not all Christians, so that kind of reading is new to me and feels rather odd.
    - lotharbot 12y ago
      Christian Fundamentalism (which is a decidedly American/English sect, 100 years old this year) is the only sect I'm aware of that takes a hard-line literalist approach to Genesis 1, and even among them there's argument as to whether the sun is literally created at that time or if it becomes visible somehow. (That idea is fairly old -- I was just reading Aquinas' take on it, written in the 1200s: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.FP_Q70_A1.html http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.FP_Q70_A1.html ) Many Christian sects (historical and modern) don't view Genesis 1 as specific "points in time". There are various alternative theories -- Augustine (354-430 AD) suggests that creation of all six "days" worth of stuff was actually a single instantaneous event, and that the "days" might refer to the way God revealed creation to the "angelic mind", for example. One theory gaining more prominence is that the Genesis account parallels an older Egyptian account in a subversive way -- using the same structure (including the "days") but setting itself apart in the way it speaks about the details of God and creation (see https://bible.org/article/genesis-1-2-light-ancient-egyptian-creation-myths https://bible.org/article/genesis-1-2-light-ancient-egyptian... .) Viewed from this perspective, the "days" are just poetic structure and have nothing to do with the actual timing of creation.

negamax 12y ago

Inclination of religious people to prove their texts to be relevant in light of scientific discoveries is interesting trend. And I see it everywhere, in all religions. Have you heard of term scientific religion?

krapp 12y ago
What other choice can religious people make and still remain religious? It can't be the Word of God if it can be disproven, but of course the goalposts of interpretation can always be moved. I mean, it's no longer dogma that the universe is written on crystal spheres surrounding the perfect sphere of Earth, because it can't be... but Genesis is still vague enough that it can be handwaved to justify anything else science comes up with (until that has to be conceded to as well.)
- jorangreef 12y ago
  If you want to disprove the Christian faith (faith in the historical person of Jesus Christ), then you need to make up your mind about the positive and negative historical sources concerning him, their closeness in time to him (historical distance), and the textual reliability of those sources. See Paul Barnett's "Jesus And The Logic Of History" for the historical method as applied to Jesus: http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-History-Studies-Biblical-Theology/dp/0830826033 http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-History-Studies-Biblical-Theolog...
  - krapp 12y ago
    I'm not interested in proving it or disproving it, but rather just pointing out that Christianity keeps disproving itself, particularly when it comes to interpreting something like Genesis as anything but an ancient fable. Using science to try to validate a creation myth thousands of years removed from its intended cultural and political context seems kind of absurd - and a lot of Christians would agree with me anyway, so it's not even that irreligious a point of view. I would argue this is neither good science nor good religion. Both should accept that the map is not the destination, and that although some models are momentarily useful, none are necessarily true. Genesis is a beautiful story which had a point and a purpose in its time and place but it didn't happen. We know it didn't happen because the evidence against its account is overwhelming (unless you reinterpret the account, but then there's no possible way the original Hebrews meant for the story to take into consideration fundamental truths about geology and astronomy which they had no concept of at the time.) That said though, I wish there could be a thread about these sorts of things without the incessant drive-by downvoting. Or at least without the censorship of the downvote mechanism.

scott_s 12y ago

I downvoted you because religious discussions are classic internet flamewar topics. We'd like to avoid those.

lotharbot 12y ago
"unless you have something genuinely new to say about them." (From the guidelines.)
- scott_s 12y ago
  I contend that there is nothing genuinely new regarding religion in this thread. Also, religious discussion on science story submissions are off-topic, and almost guaranteed to turn into flamewars.
  - lotharbot 12y ago
    then you must have a remarkably deep education on this subject. I congratulate you. EDIT: in response to your well-timed edit -- there is not currently a flamewar going on. Discussing the intersection of religion and science can be a fast track to a flamewar in the wrong circumstances, but these are excellent circumstances for a reasoned discussion.