OT: What's your religeon?

[deccan]

narf poit chez BOOM said:
I'll just point out that the order described in the bible fits the order described by the location of fossils, as it was described in my textbooks.

You're going to be have to be more specific, but generally I'd say that this is not correct.

Roughly the order described in Genesis goes like this, quotes from KJV:

1: "...grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself.."

2: "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years..."

(Note: so God supposedly made plants and trees first, then made the Sun and the Moon etc. Ouch.)

3: "Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good."

4: "Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind..."

The above implies that God created fish first (generally correct) but makes the mistake of including whales as fish which as we now know, is not correct. But the writers of Genesis could not know what we know. Generally, evolutionary biology (supported by recent fossil findings) state that whales are descendents of land-based mammals.

It also implies that birds were created before reptiles ("creeping thing"?) and in any case, before land-based animals, and anyone who's watched "Jurassic Park" knows that's not true.

I can supply complete references to anyone who is interested.

narf poit chez BOOM said:
The arguement that the biblical creation must be false because it is simaliar to many others is a falicy(sp?), if such a congruence exists (I havn't read other religeons religeous texts, yet), it is evidence of some sort of historical congruence or origin point and hardly evidence of falsety(sp?).

You are correct of course. But the main point is not to say that it is factually false, merely to say that it is unoriginal. If there is true "congruence", then we must reasonably be able to say that the writers of Genesis based their writings on information sources completely independently of the cultures surrounding them.

Given the close cultural contact between them and the Sumerians, Babylonians, Egyptians etc., it is more reasonable to suppose that the writers of Genesis plagiarized, to use an unkind word, from existing creation mythologies that pre-dated the Jewish religion. On the other hand, if we find significant similarities between two cultures who were completely isolated from one another, then we would be able to speculate on the possibility of congruence.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Creeping things can also mean bugs.

As for the order, KJV, 1st day: 'In the beggining God created the heaven and the Earth.' - Universe, then planet. Same.
'And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.' - Sun after planet. Different.
'and God divided the light from the darkness.' Planetary rotation. Same.
2nd day,
'And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so.' Seems to imply that atmosphere came after water; as far as breathable, same.
3rd day,
'And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear' Same. Also, implies that if the waters were in one place, the land was in one piece - As geologists generally say. Same.
'And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.' After water, atmosphere and land formation, plants. Note that the next verse recaps and references 'trees'.
4th,
'And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:' Stars now. Different.
'And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also.' Different.
5th,
'And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.' Land creatures. Same. Fowl - No reference to feathers. Indeterminate.
'And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.' Creatures coming out of the water. Same. Large sea creatures after (Implied)small ones. Same. No reference to feathers.
6th,
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.' More diverse life forms(Implied) after(Implied) less diverse life forms. Same.
'So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.' Humans after the establishment of every other catagory of life. Same.

11 Same
3 Different
2 Indeterminate (Labelling the fowl indeterminate)

That's enough for me to say it's amazingly accurate, given the span of time.

As for the creation myths round about that area, as I said, I havn't met the literature. However, your assertion that they are older is premature. There is no conclusive non-religious evidence that I know of.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

And this is getting kind of off-topic, so if you want to reply, please make a new thread.

[Fyron]

A few problems there Narf...

As for the order, KJV, 1st day: 'In the beggining God created the heaven and the Earth.' - Universe, then planet. Same.

No. This does not say, heaven first, then the Earth, just heaven and Earth. There is no order. This is not the same as scientific fact. It is a bit of a stretch to relete "heaven" to "universe," but that is beside the point.

'And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so.' Seems to imply that atmosphere came after water; as far as breathable, same.

That is an invalid assumption. There was atmosphere long before water. There are also no "waters under the firmanent," there is magma, and molten cores, and all that fun stuff, especially before the Earth started cooling enough for any water to be present in non-gaseous form.

3rd day,
'And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear' Same.

Dry land was there long before liquid water. The world was never covered entirely in water, then land started appearing. This is backwards. Water started appearing as the Earth cooled from its super hot beginnings (condensation). Unless you want to call lava water...

'And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose see is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.' After water, atmosphere and land formation, plants. Note that the next verse recaps and references 'trees'.

5th,
'And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.' Land creatures. Same.

This is rather ambiguous... doesn't say what sort of creatures the waters brought forth. Land creatures? Sea creatures? What was first, fish or land creatures? Definitely indeterminate.

Fowl - No reference to feathers. Indeterminate.

Fowl means one thing, a certain kind of bird. Fowl directly implies (and requires) feathers.

'And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.' Creatures coming out of the water. Same.

The waters only "brought forth" marine life and amphibians. Everything else was not "brought forth" by the waters, but evolved from the first amphibians, on land.

Large sea creatures after (Implied)small ones. Same.

There was no such implication. If you want to read it literally, as you did before, it implies that great whales were first.

No reference to feathers.

Again, fowl is a certain class of birds. Most certainly feathers. Can't be anything else.

6th,
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.' More diverse life forms(Implied) after(Implied) less diverse life forms. Same.

I see no such implication. Also, seems to be contradictory. All the living creatures that move were already created on day 5. How can creatures already created be recreated?

'So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.' Humans after the establishment of every other catagory of life. Same.

No, not the same. There are a lot of categories of life that evolved after or parallel with humans.

That's enough for me to say it's amazingly accurate, given the span of time.

It is not that accurate...

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Could a mod move the entire off-topic part to another thread, please?

For help on what to make, I think it really got off-topic with Dogscoff's Last post; Fyron think's it started with 'Electrum's post perhaps, starting with "On one hand, I understand a person Not beliving the Bible based on the actions & conduct on those who "Claim" to believe it. I personally am appalled by such mis-representation. "'

So, um, use your judgement?

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Fyron's already seen some of these answers on IRC, but other people havn't, so that's why I'm replying to all of them, in case you were wondering, Fyron.

What I'm saying here is that what we have in the bible KJV describes the end result of milenia of scribes occasionally making mistakes, with good accuracy. I'm not saying it all makes sense; I firmly beleive that the bible we have now is not the bible that was given.

Imperator Fyron said:
A few problems there Narf...

No. This does not say, heaven first, then the Earth, just heaven and Earth. There is no order. This is not the same as scientific fact. It is a bit of a stretch to relete "heaven" to "universe," but that is beside the point.

[/qoute]
Heaven is listed first, then earth. It is not unreasonable to think that they would be listed in order of creation. An athiest who beleived/Subscribed to the big band theory would likely say something like 'The big bang pretty much created the visible universe and the earth'. It is less likely they would say 'The big bang pretty much created the earth and the universe'. As for the second point, what do you call the universe when you don't have the word 'universe'?
[qoute]

That is an invalid assumption. There was atmosphere long before water. There are also no "waters under the firmanent," there is magma, and molten cores, and all that fun stuff, especially before the Earth started cooling enough for any water to be present in non-gaseous form.

[/qoute]
Please note that I said 'breathable'.
Actually, you inadvertantly explained it better than I did. What do you call lava when you know it's not fire, but don't have a word for 'lava'?
[qoute]

Dry land was there long before liquid water. The world was never covered entirely in water, then land started appearing. This is backwards. Water started appearing as the Earth cooled from its super hot beginnings (condensation). Unless you want to call lava water...

[/qoute]
Water could mean lava. Or, it could refer to the formation of the supercontinent geologists beleive existed, without altering the meaning of the previous verse.
[qoute]

This is rather ambiguous... doesn't say what sort of creatures the waters brought forth. Land creatures? Sea creatures? What was first, fish or land creatures? Definitely indeterminate.

[qoute]
'the waters' seems to be mentioned as an origin.
[/qoute]

Fowl means one thing, a certain kind of bird. Fowl directly implies (and requires) feathers.

[qoute]
Yes - But I doubt hebrew had a word for 'winged lizard'.
[/qoute]

The waters only "brought forth" marine life and amphibians. Everything else was not "brought forth" by the waters, but evolved from the first amphibians, on land.

[qoute]
See above.
[/qoute]

There was no such implication. If you want to read it literally, as you did before, it implies that great whales were first.

[qoute]
Their were two 'brought forth's' before great whales.
[/qoute]

Again, fowl is a certain class of birds. Most certainly feathers. Can't be anything else.

[qoute]
See above
[/qoute]

I see no such implication. Also, seems to be contradictory. All the living creatures that move were already created on day 5. How can creatures already created be recreated?

[qoute]
Each 'brough forth' mentions a new class, generally expanding on the old 'brought forth'.
All the previous land creatures were amphibions?
[/qoute]

No, not the same. There are a lot of categories of life that evolved after or parallel with humans.

[qoute]
Rephrase: 'Every other order listed.' My mistake.
[/qoute]

It is not that accurate...

I disagree.