DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**adsexpist** · 08-21-2012, 06:16 PM

so I point out Omphalos hypothesis ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis ).

JM

I usually point to the creation scheme in Genesis.
Light on day 1, after which it becomes evening and morning, the 2nd day... and God saw it was good.
Then on day 4 God creates the sun.

Then I ask: if it was good on day 1 that some unknown light source seperated day from night, then why is God on day 4 suddenly implementing the sun? Was he dissatisfied after all with how light, day and night worked on day 1?
And how was earth positioned before the sun existed? Was it hanging on a rope from heaven? And then on day 4 it was bound to the gravity of the sun? During day 1-3 earth was in position by some work around? Is a work around good?

Of course God can do anything and everything, but if he says that it's good, then why is there a need for workarounds from day 1-3 b/c the sun had not yet been created?

Every sane person, either a creationist or an atheist will agree that the authors of genesis were smart people, or at least the person who edited it all together. He was able to write, was able to write something that was an interesting read, good enough to stand the test of time, the piece of work was both in line and in response to writings of those days. It was well structured, etc.

This person was not a fool.
He was smart enough to understand that day and night are caused by the sun, and that the work-around for day 1-3 was not 'good'.
This can only lead to the conclusion that the authors/editors of Genesis 1 didn't mean it to be understood literally. As a matter of fact that's known of those days, that most writings and tales aren't meant to be understood literally, but carry a message along. Usually written in structures and rhymes to make it easier to understand.

And then suddenly the structure of the 6 days (not 7!) makes sense.
Day 1 light/night/day, Day 4 light bearers
Day 2 water / sky, Day 5 water-animals/ sky-animals
Day 3 land / plants Day 6 land animals / plants are taken care of

It's not meant to be literal and it hasn't been interpretated literal by most important theologes in history either.
Only when the Theory of Evolution popped up some christians started to explain Gen1 literally in response to this theory of evolution.
It's simple a reactionair way of reasoning.

08-21-2012, 06:16 PM	#12
adsexpist Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 339 Senior Member	so I point out Omphalos hypothesis ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis ). JM I usually point to the creation scheme in Genesis. Light on day 1, after which it becomes evening and morning, the 2nd day... and God saw it was good. Then on day 4 God creates the sun. Then I ask: if it was good on day 1 that some unknown light source seperated day from night, then why is God on day 4 suddenly implementing the sun? Was he dissatisfied after all with how light, day and night worked on day 1? And how was earth positioned before the sun existed? Was it hanging on a rope from heaven? And then on day 4 it was bound to the gravity of the sun? During day 1-3 earth was in position by some work around? Is a work around good? Of course God can do anything and everything, but if he says that it's good, then why is there a need for workarounds from day 1-3 b/c the sun had not yet been created? Every sane person, either a creationist or an atheist will agree that the authors of genesis were smart people, or at least the person who edited it all together. He was able to write, was able to write something that was an interesting read, good enough to stand the test of time, the piece of work was both in line and in response to writings of those days. It was well structured, etc. This person was not a fool. He was smart enough to understand that day and night are caused by the sun, and that the work-around for day 1-3 was not 'good'. This can only lead to the conclusion that the authors/editors of Genesis 1 didn't mean it to be understood literally. As a matter of fact that's known of those days, that most writings and tales aren't meant to be understood literally, but carry a message along. Usually written in structures and rhymes to make it easier to understand. And then suddenly the structure of the 6 days (not 7!) makes sense. Day 1 light/night/day, Day 4 light bearers Day 2 water / sky, Day 5 water-animals/ sky-animals Day 3 land / plants Day 6 land animals / plants are taken care of It's not meant to be literal and it hasn't been interpretated literal by most important theologes in history either. Only when the Theory of Evolution popped up some christians started to explain Gen1 literally in response to this theory of evolution. It's simple a reactionair way of reasoning.
	Quote