Ex C Bible Study Gen 1 - 1

[mymistake]

 

Please...... someone, start an Ex-c bible study and thoroughly study the book of Genesis because I think it would help a lot of people.......

 

-Margee

 

 

Okay let's start with the first verse.  This is where the Bible starts to go wrong.

 

Genesis, Chapter 1, verse 1, King James Version:

 

 

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

 

 

Right away this violates what we have observed.  Heaven and Earth did not form at the same time.  Scientists have been studying many fields and have developed many different dating methods that tell us the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old but our universe is around 13.82 billion years old.  So the universe was here for nine billion years before the Earth formed.  That is nothing like what Genesis 1:1 states.  It isn't allegory.  The Bible is simply wrong.

 

But let's think about it a different way.  God is suppose to be eternal.  That means God always existed.  According to Christian theology God created the angels at some point.  Maybe it was suppose to be the same time as what Genesis 1:1 mentions or not but the point is that angels had a beginning and heaven had a beginning and Earth had a beginning but God did not have a beginning.  God always was.  So in your mind roll the clock back 13.83 billion years ago.  Imagine that it is now 10,000,000 years before God made anything.  It's just God sitting in the middle of nothing and God is chilling.  God isn't going to make anything at all for another ten million years.  God must be happy out there in the middle of nothing with nobody to talk to and nothing to do or else why would God wait another ten million years?  But it is more than that because the clock goes back forever.  God has no beginning.  So 27.64 billion years ago God was sitting in the middle of nothing, talking to nobody and doing nothing and God must have been perfectly content because he was going to wait 13.82 billion years before creating anything at all.  And roll the clock back to 113.82 billion years ago we see God was going to wait a hundred billion years before creating anything.  God could have made something back then but nope he wasn't going to.  And back 913.82 billion years ago God was just chilling in the nothing with nobody to talk to and perfectly happy because God choose to wait 900 billion years before creating anything.

 

The concept of an eternal God is nonsense.  If a being really was eternal then humans who live up to 115 years would mean nothing to God.

 

Genesis is a fable.  And Genesis 1:1 is the Hebrew version of "Once upon a time".  This fable was how the Hebrew leaders were going to answer the questions that puzzled their Bronze Age culture.  "Why are men owners and women are property?"  "Why do farmers have to work so hard?"  "Why do women experience pain in childbirth?"  "Why should we obey the King, the Priests and this God?"  These were the questions Genesis was intended to answer so the fable does not hold up to the observations of science.

 

 

 

 

Christians are welcome to try to defend the Bible if they can but I warn you that you will have to do better than "I believe" or quoting song lyrics.  Faith is not a reason to believe.  Telling us you have faith doesn't provide a reason to believe.  All apologetics will be tested for merit and torn to shreds if found wanting.

 

 

[duderonomy]

I think for this thread, and this thread only, I'll be a Christian again. I'll have fun, but be as serious as I know how to be. 

 

First, I'd like to thank MM for starting this thread. I read what Margee wrote, and I wanted to start one, but I knew I wouldn't know where to start! I figured someone would come along and start the thread that was more qualified than me. 

I was wrong.

 

MM, we need to define "the beginning" before we can discuss what happened in it, don't you think? The beginning of the earth and the beginning of the universe don't have to happen at the same time to both be classified as being in "the beginning". 

Do you remember when you were in your mother's womb? Do you remember your creation?  I'll bet you don't, and they didn't both happen at the same time, but they were both in your beginning. 

[sdelsolray]

The Earth is part of the heavens, at least when viewed from locations other than Earth.  Separating the two in the first sentence of the Bible demonstrates a lack of cosmic awareness by the author.

 

The Earth contains elements that were only formed in supernova explosions.  It took quite some time for over 60 elements (those heavier than iron - e.g., copper, tin, silver, gold), others which are used by life forms on this planet (e.g., zinc, selenium, iodine), to be formed in sufficient quantities and disbursed through supernova explosions and other stellar processes towards and into hydrogen gas clouds to eventually accrete into planets, including the Earth.  In the case of the Earth, it was about 9 billion years, although these heavier elements started being formed just a few tens or hundreds of million of years after stars began to be formed.  The author of the first sentence of the Bible was ignorant of this history of reality.

[sdelsolray]

I think for this thread, and this thread only, I'll be a Christian again. I'll have fun, but be as serious as I know how to be. 

 

First, I'd like to thank MM for starting this thread. I read what Margee wrote, and I wanted to start one, but I knew I wouldn't know where to start! I figured someone would come along and start the thread that was more qualified than me. 

I was wrong.

 

MM, we need to define "the beginning" before we can discuss what happened in it, don't you think? The beginning of the earth and the beginning of the universe don't have to happen at the same time to both be classified as being in "the beginning". 

Do you remember when you were in your mother's womb? Do you remember your creation?  I'll bet you don't, and they didn't both happen at the same time, but they were both in your beginning. 

 

That would be two beginnings (with many endings in between), at least to folks who have actual knowledge of the amount of time between (i) the temporal start of spacetime, matter and energy ("heavens") and (ii) the temporal start of the Earth.

[Justus]

Let’s see, in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

 

But then again the term Elohim is plural, not singular but I digress. So let’s change God to primordial atom, heaven to expanse of space and earth to matter and what do we have.

In the beginning there was the primordial atom, which from a highly condensed state from which all space, matter, energy and time rapidly expanded forming the known and observed universe. 

Well, by gosh it does make all the difference in the world doesn’t it.

 

--------------------------

So where did this primordial atom come from?

If this primordial atom contained all the space and matter then how could the age of space and matter be 14 billion years old if it already existed before the time of its rapid expansion?

So if all the known space, matter, energy and time was contained in this primordial atom, then what was external source was causing the primordial atom to condense since an internal source would only condense to the point of equilibrium where the force condensing the primordial atom was equal to the amount of force being produced from within the primordial atom?

Here is a simple one for you, what tree did the pecan tree evolve from?  And how long do you think it takes one species of tree to evolve into another species of tree?

[Fweethawt]

^^ ray comfort on steroids ^^

[Justus]

The Earth is part of the heavens, at least when viewed from locations other than Earth.  Separating the two in the first sentence of the Bible demonstrates a lack of cosmic awareness by the author.

The scripture uses the term 'heaven' being singular. The term 'heaven' in Genesis 1:1 implies the expanse of space that forms the universe.

[Justus]

^^ ray comfort on steroids ^^

LOL. I don't think I have ever said that you have to believe anything. But if you believe in something at least try to ensure that there is some truth to it or next thing you know you will be believing something without any physical form or substance impregnated a married woman who gave birth to God.

[disillusioned]

Let’s see, in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

 

But then again the term Elohim is plural, not singular but I digress. So let’s change God to primordial atom, heaven to expanse of space and earth to matter and what do we have.

In the beginning there was the primordial atom, which from a highly condensed state from which all space, matter, energy and time rapidly expanded forming the known and observed universe. 

Well, by gosh it does make all the difference in the world doesn’t it.

 

--------------------------

So where did this primordial atom come from?

If this primordial atom contained all the space and matter then how could the age of space and matter be 14 billion years old if it already existed before the time of its rapid expansion?

So if all the known space, matter, energy and time was contained in this primordial atom, then what was external source was causing the primordial atom to condense since an internal source would only condense to the point of equilibrium where the force condensing the primordial atom was equal to the amount of force being produced from within the primordial atom?

Here is a simple one for you, what tree did the pecan tree evolve from?  And how long do you think it takes one species of tree to evolve into another species of tree?

 

I have no words. Do you even science?

[rjn]

If this primordial atom contained all the space and matter then how could the age of space and matter be 14 billion years old if it already existed before the time of its rapid expansion?

 

There was no such thing as a "Primordial Atom", but a singularity. Time and space as we know it did not exist prior to the Big Bang. It's possible something existed "before", but we will never know, so that will most likely always be in the field of speculation and pure imagination. For all intents and purposes, existence as we understand it began some 13,7 BYA.

[bornagainathiest]

For those in this thread writing about the scientific explanation of the beginning of the universe, please don't forget the following essential points about Inflationary cosmology.

 

1. 

Inflationary expansion is exponential and once begun, never ends.

 

2.

After 60 - 100 doublings of exponential inflation, the unstable energy field driving the expansion began to spontaneously and randomly decay.

 

3.

This decay only affects discrete regions of the much larger, still-inflating volume, which continues to accelerate in it's expansion.

 

4.

This abrupt decay converts the inflationary energy in each discrete region into heat and is experienced in each decayed region as their own hot Big Bang.

 

5.

Therefore, the hot Big Bang we observe in our region is no different from any other hot Big Bang in any other regions that have undergone this same decay.

 

6.

All such regions would observe their own Big Bang and all observers in these regions would conclude that for them, time and space began abruptly.

 

7.

According to the Copernican Principle, no observed phenomenon or particular time or location in space is taken to be in any way special, privileged or different from any other in any way.

 

8.

Therefore, the hot Big Bang we observe to have occurred 13.72 billion years ago in our region of space-time cannot be accorded the status of 'first' or 'original' of anything.

 

9.

It appears as the 'origin' to us, but we cannot say that it was the very first such region of the inflating energy field to decay, as per # 2 - 4.

 

10.

Because the count of (local) time began for us 13.72 billion years ago, we cannot say when, in the wider context of Inflationary time, our particular region decayed.

 

11.

We could have been the very first region or we could have been preceded by one thousand trillion other ones.

 

12.

Similarly, though we can say that inflation has been exponentially accelerating for at least 13.72 billion years, we cannot say that it began 13.72 billion years ago.

 

13.

It could have been inflating long, long before our particular region decayed and experienced it's own hot Big Bang. 

 

 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I think, deep down inside, Justus really wanted to discuss the Primordial Adam.

[mymistake]

Let’s see, in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

 

But then again the term Elohim is plural, not singular but I digress. So let’s change God to primordial atom, heaven to expanse of space and earth to matter and what do we have.

In the beginning there was the primordial atom, which from a highly condensed state from which all space, matter, energy and time rapidly expanded forming the known and observed universe. 

Well, by gosh it does make all the difference in the world doesn’t it.

 

--------------------------

So where did this primordial atom come from?

If this primordial atom contained all the space and matter then how could the age of space and matter be 14 billion years old if it already existed before the time of its rapid expansion?

So if all the known space, matter, energy and time was contained in this primordial atom, then what was external source was causing the primordial atom to condense since an internal source would only condense to the point of equilibrium where the force condensing the primordial atom was equal to the amount of force being produced from within the primordial atom?

Here is a simple one for you, what tree did the pecan tree evolve from?  And how long do you think it takes one species of tree to evolve into another species of tree?

 

 

I love it.  For the primordial atom so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son (who is also the primordial atom) to sacrifice himself to himself to appease himself for the blame he placed on his limited creation that could not pass a trick the primordial atom set up knowing they would fail because that is how the primordial atom rolls.  Why did the primordial atom get Mary pregnant?  He could have just created his own son out of dust the way he created Adam.  Teen pregnancy and banging your own mom must be Godly . . . er, I mean they must be primordial atomy.  Generating technobabble does not give us a reason to believe God exists.

 

 

 

You can google the evolution of the pecan tree just as easily as I can.  I never claimed to be a paleobotanist.  Those who are know the answer to your question.

[mymistake]

 

The Earth is part of the heavens, at least when viewed from locations other than Earth.  Separating the two in the first sentence of the Bible demonstrates a lack of cosmic awareness by the author.

The scripture uses the term 'heaven' being singular. The term 'heaven' in Genesis 1:1 implies the expanse of space that forms the universe.

 

 

 

Uh no.  The ancient Hebrews thought the sky was a roof that was held up by mountains.  The gods and angels live above that roof and if we could only build a tower a few hundred feet taller than the tallest mountain (and then swim up through the ocean that is the source of all the rain) we could climb up into heaven and shake hands with God.  That is why God got so pissed off about the tower of Babble.

 

[sdelsolray]

 

The Earth is part of the heavens, at least when viewed from locations other than Earth.  Separating the two in the first sentence of the Bible demonstrates a lack of cosmic awareness by the author.

The scripture uses the term 'heaven' being singular. 

...

 

 

Well, OK then.  Let me restate my observation:

 

The Earth is part of heaven, at least when viewed from locations other than Earth, as would stars, other planets and galaxies when viewed from Earth.  Separating the two in the first sentence of the Bible demonstrates a lack of cosmic awareness by the author.

 

 

The Earth is part of the heavens, at least when viewed from locations other than Earth.  Separating the two in the first sentence of the Bible demonstrates a lack of cosmic awareness by the author.

...

The term 'heaven' in Genesis 1:1 implies the expanse of space that forms the universe.

 

 

Just not in any way you can demonstrate.

[duderonomy]

 

I think for this thread, and this thread only, I'll be a Christian again. I'll have fun, but be as serious as I know how to be. 

 

First, I'd like to thank MM for starting this thread. I read what Margee wrote, and I wanted to start one, but I knew I wouldn't know where to start! I figured someone would come along and start the thread that was more qualified than me. 

I was wrong.

 

MM, we need to define "the beginning" before we can discuss what happened in it, don't you think? The beginning of the earth and the beginning of the universe don't have to happen at the same time to both be classified as being in "the beginning". 

Do you remember when you were in your mother's womb? Do you remember your creation?  I'll bet you don't, and they didn't both happen at the same time, but they were both in your beginning. 

 

That would be two beginnings (with many endings in between), at least to folks who have actual knowledge of the amount of time between (i) the temporal start of spacetime, matter and energy ("heavens") and (ii) the temporal start of the Earth.

 

 

Compare verse one with the opening from Star wars..."A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away..."  Is that opener supposed to set the scene for what is to follow, or is it supposed to contain all of the science and history of the universe, the galaxy, the exact timeline of all events that came before the statement was made?

I think if one looks at Genesis 1:1 as a declaratory statement that opens the story of humanity, one would see it for what it is, not for what it isn't.

It's not intended to be an apologetic or a scientific paper.

 

While it's true that the Earth was formed at a different time than some of the universe isn't an argument. The universe is still being formed. Should we then refrain from speaking of it until it is finished, or may we describe what came before, what now is, and what will be while the universe is still forming?

Certainly to say that the Big Bang happened about 14.5 billion years ago describes an event that took time. Science can speak to Planck time, for example, but it can also speak to "the Big Bang that happened about 14.5 billion years ago" and both are describing the same thing. One to nanoseconds, and the other in a big picture way. If creation happened at one small point or a million small points, it's still the Big Bang.  To say that God created the Heavens and the Earth "in the beginning" is no different than saying "about 14.5 billion years ago there was a Big Bang".

I should also throw in that the Earth was present at and in the Big Bang, albeit not in it's present form, so it's not inaccurate to say that they were created at the same time.

[Geezer]

Genesis is a collection of mythical stories created by ancient cultures that created them to account for how life began & why evil exists. It also presents a mythical explanation of how the Hebrew culture came to be. Until Christian Fundamentalism evolved I seriously doubt those stories were taken literally or accepted as real historical events.

 

Essentially, Genesis is a collection of ancient adult fairy tales. The stories themselves are silly, so would would it be necessary to bring science into the conversation to discredit Genesis? The stories are obviously myths & were never intended to be taken literally.

[Justus]

 

Let’s see, in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

 

But then again the term Elohim is plural, not singular but I digress. So let’s change God to primordial atom, heaven to expanse of space and earth to matter and what do we have.

In the beginning there was the primordial atom, which from a highly condensed state from which all space, matter, energy and time rapidly expanded forming the known and observed universe. 

Well, by gosh it does make all the difference in the world doesn’t it.

 

--------------------------

So where did this primordial atom come from?

If this primordial atom contained all the space and matter then how could the age of space and matter be 14 billion years old if it already existed before the time of its rapid expansion?

So if all the known space, matter, energy and time was contained in this primordial atom, then what was external source was causing the primordial atom to condense since an internal source would only condense to the point of equilibrium where the force condensing the primordial atom was equal to the amount of force being produced from within the primordial atom?

Here is a simple one for you, what tree did the pecan tree evolve from?  And how long do you think it takes one species of tree to evolve into another species of tree?

 

I have no words. Do you even science?

 

 

Really?  I could ask you the same question but I won't, yet I will ask exactly where did the Big Bang theory originate in your opinion?

 

I would suggest the "Hypothesis of the Primordial Atom" but I would delighted to hear your response.  

 

This is an excerpt from COSMIC HORIZONS: ASTRONOMY AT THE CUTTING EDGE, edited by Steven Soter and Neil deGrasse Tyson, a publication of the New Press. © 2000 American Museum of Natural History.

 

"Appealing to the new quantum theory of matter, Lemaître argued that the physical universe was initially a single particle—the “primeval atom” as he called it—which disintegrated in an explosion, giving rise to space and time and the expansion of the universe that continues to this day. This idea marked the birth of what we now know as Big Bang cosmology."

 

"According to the Big Bang theory, the expansion of the observable universe began with the explosion of a single particle at a definite point in time. This startling idea first appeared in scientific form in 1931, in a paper by Georges Lemaître, a Belgian cosmologist and Catholic priest. The theory, accepted by nearly all astronomers today, was a radical departure from scientific orthodoxy in the 1930s. Many astronomers at the time were still uncomfortable with the idea that the universe is expanding."

 

Dark Energy: The Energy of Nothing by MICHIO KAKU

 

"If you calculate the total matter of the universe it is positive," Dr. Kaku says. "If you calculate the total energy of the universe it is negative, because of gravity." So what happens when you add the two together? Zero. "So it takes no energy to create a universe," Dr. Kaku points out.

[rjn]

For those in this thread writing about the scientific explanation of the beginning of the universe, please don't forget the following essential points about Inflationary cosmology.

[...]

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

Thank you for this post. Very informative for a science noob like me!

[Justus]

 

If this primordial atom contained all the space and matter then how could the age of space and matter be 14 billion years old if it already existed before the time of its rapid expansion?

 

There was no such thing as a "Primordial Atom", but a singularity. Time and space as we know it did not exist prior to the Big Bang. It's possible something existed "before", but we will never know, so that will most likely always be in the field of speculation and pure imagination. For all intents and purposes, existence as we understand it began some 13,7 BYA.

 

Singularity of what, nothing?  You have to remember that energy and matter can neither be created nor destroyed.  If they can neither be created nor destroyed then how did it originate?  

 

Better yet, take the expanse of space, it is a void according to modern cosmology is it not?

[Justus]

 

 

The Earth is part of the heavens, at least when viewed from locations other than Earth.  Separating the two in the first sentence of the Bible demonstrates a lack of cosmic awareness by the author.

The scripture uses the term 'heaven' being singular. 

...

 

 

Well, OK then.  Let me restate my observation:

 

The Earth is part of heaven, at least when viewed from locations other than Earth, as would stars, other planets and galaxies when viewed from Earth.  Separating the two in the first sentence of the Bible demonstrates a lack of cosmic awareness by the author.

 

 

The Earth is part of the heavens, at least when viewed from locations other than Earth.  Separating the two in the first sentence of the Bible demonstrates a lack of cosmic awareness by the author.

...

The term 'heaven' in Genesis 1:1 implies the expanse of space that forms the universe.

 

 

Just not in any way you can demonstrate.

 

 

Since science can't prove anything anyway, as I am told, I guess you'll have to take it on faith...

 

But you might consider 'heaven' as matter without mass, maybe like a photon, except instead of visibile light it moves a little faster so you can't see it so it might appear dark, but it is actually light.  And 'earth' as matter having mass say like an atom.

[mymistake]

 

 Singularity of what, nothing?  You have to remember that energy and matter can neither be created nor destroyed.  If they can neither be created nor destroyed then how did it originate?  

 

 

 

If matter and energy cannot be created then the universe did not originate.  There is no getting around this.  Either we are wrong about creating matter/energy or the universe always exited in some other form.

[Justus]

 

 

 Singularity of what, nothing?  You have to remember that energy and matter can neither be created nor destroyed.  If they can neither be created nor destroyed then how did it originate?  

 

 

 

If matter and energy cannot be created then the universe did not originate.  There is no getting around this.  Either we are wrong about creating matter/energy or the universe always exited in some other form.

 

 

What about the law of conservation of mass or principle of mass conservation.

 

The law implies that mass can neither be created nor destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space, or the entities associated with it may be changed in form.

 

According to the history of conservation  it was derived from the  important idea in ancient Greek philosophy was that "Nothing comes from nothing", so that what exists now has always existed: no new matter can come into existence where there was none before. An explicit statement of this, along with the further principle that nothing can pass away into nothing, is found in Empedocles (approx. 490–430 BC): "For it is impossible for anything to come to be from what is not, and it cannot be brought about or heard of that what is should be utterly destroyed." A further principle of conservation was stated by Epicurus (341–270 BC) who, describing the nature of the universe, wrote that "the totality of things was always such as it is now, and always will be".

[bornagainathiest]

Fyi Justus,

 

Lemaitre's Primordial atom has been superseded by the particle physics-based theory of Inflation.

His work was based upon astronomical observations of the movement of galaxies, tracing their linear movement back thru time to an origin from a single point.  That kind of linear movement couldn't be reconciled with the Grand Unification Theory of the particle physics and was dropped in favor of the exponential movement (expansion) of the early universe, as described by Inflationary theory in the early 80's. 

 

Also, at the 1982 Nuffield workshop on the very early universe (convened by Stephen Hawking) it was shown that such a point-like entity would be a gravitational singularity, with an inescapable gravitational attraction.  That is, nothing could ever come out from it.  So asking an entire universe to come out of it was rejected as impossible.  Hawking solved this paradox by showing that Einsteinian gravity works both forward and backward in time.  Therefore, rather than the initial singularity resembling a universe-swallowing black hole, it could have been a universe-emitting white hole.

 

However, the salient point to take from this message is that Lemaitre's work has been discarded in favour of Inflation.

 

Please bring yourself up to date.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Justus]

 

Please bring yourself up to date.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

Why is it the disciple of science can continually rewrite the principles which they said were tested and verified by the scientific process, thus without error, yet later are proven to be incorrect, or even found to be without any basis in fact or reality, yet still expect to have credibility?