The Mistakes in Genesis

[jeremyp]

Quoth TW

 ... why not start a thread and post the mistakes in Genesis I am waiting go for it allow me to wipe you clean.I am in the mood for you.Get posting the mistakes--waiting.

The context is TW's assertion that Genesis is a scientifically accurate account:

Also Gordon you forget {Very Convenient} the structure of the creation account,scientifically verified.

So we only need to consider scientific mistakes in Genesis.

To keep it easy for TW's wiping, a maximum of one mistake per post please. I'll go first:

The Sun was not created after the Earth.

[Gordon]

Allegedly God separated day from night on the first day - which is plain daft if the Sun (which is fairly essential in the day vs night scenario) wasn't created until the fourth day.

Hopefully these days nobody is naive enough to treat the ancient Genesis story as being literal.

[Gordon]

Allegedly God separated day from night on the first day - which is plain daft if the Sun (which is fairly essential in the day vs night scenario) wasn't created until the fourth day.

Hopefully these days nobody is naive enough to treat the ancient Genesis story as being literal.

Although you could take the separation day from night and the creation of light to have happened at the Big Bang.

But then a it's not literal I suppose 

Day and night require our local star to be bright-eyed and bush-tailed though, which clearly torpedoes Genesis as being a literal account.

[Owlswing]

This thread, so far, is rather noticable for a stunning silence from the direction of TW!


]WAKE UP CREATIONISTS, YOUR THEORY NEEDS YOU!

DESPERATELY!

[Hope]

This thread, so far, is rather noticable for a stunning silence from the direction of TW!


]WAKE UP CREATIONISTS, YOUR THEORY NEEDS YOU!

DESPERATELY!

Not sure that Genesis 1-11 is meant to be literal, anyway.  As I've pointed out before, the whole of these first 11 chapters were 1) written in the 6th or 5th century BC - post the return from exile; 2) are theological in construction (as can be see by the structure of the writing in the Hebrew - but not so clearly in the English) and 3) were written in order to help the exiles understand afresh the difference between the God of the Jews and the gods of Babylon.

[trippymonkey]

3) were written in order to help the exiles understand afresh the difference between the God of the Jews and the gods of Babylon.

So actually very little eh ??

[Hope]

3) were written in order to help the exiles understand afresh the difference between the God of the Jews and the gods of Babylon.

So actually very little eh ??

No, actually very much, Nick.  Put succinctly, the God of the Jews was a loving Creator God, with all that that meant for humanity: the Babylonian gods were gods who created things through destruction.

[Maeght]

Not sure that Genesis 1-11 is meant to be literal, anyway.  As I've pointed out before, the whole of these first 11 chapters were 1) written in the 6th or 5th century BC - post the return from exile; 2) are theological in construction (as can be see by the structure of the writing in the Hebrew - but not so clearly in the English) and 3) were written in order to help the exiles understand afresh the difference between the God of the Jews and the gods of Babylon.

So you're agreeing that Genesis is not scientifically accurate?

[trippymonkey]

3) were written in order to help the exiles understand afresh the difference between the God of the Jews and the gods of Babylon.

So actually very little eh ??

No, actually very much, Nick.  Put succinctly, the God of the Jews was a loving Creator God, with all that that meant for humanity: the Babylonian gods were gods who created things through destruction.

And YOUR god isn't

[floo]

3) were written in order to help the exiles understand afresh the difference between the God of the Jews and the gods of Babylon.

So actually very little eh ??

No, actually very much, Nick.  Put succinctly, the God of the Jews was a loving Creator God, with all that that meant for humanity: the Babylonian gods were gods who created things through destruction.

The deity is far from loving, it doesn't know the meaning of the word, as has been pointed out by myself and others many times!

[Spud]

From the point of view of the author of the Pentateuch, the light on the first day probably came from God Himself. The pillar of fire (Exodus 13:21) that provided light for the Israelites is an example. Exodus 14:20 shows how, during the night, it brought darkness to the Egyptians and light to the Israelites. So it was effectively "separating  light and dark" like in Genesis 1:4.

[BashfulAnthony]

3) were written in order to help the exiles understand afresh the difference between the God of the Jews and the gods of Babylon.

So actually very little eh ??

No, actually very much, Nick.  Put succinctly, the God of the Jews was a loving Creator God, with all that that meant for humanity: the Babylonian gods were gods who created things through destruction.

The deity is far from loving, it doesn't know the meaning of the word, as has been pointed out by myself and others many times!

Every day, for years.  But then, when you've nothing else to say, I suppose it passes the time.

[trippymonkey]

And your 'point' is ?

[Owlswing]

The deity is far from loving, it doesn't know the meaning of the word, as has been pointed out by myself and others many times!

Every day, for years.  But then, when you've nothing else to say, I suppose it passes the time.

Rather like you then!

[BashfulAnthony]

The deity is far from loving, it doesn't know the meaning of the word, as has been pointed out by myself and others many times!

Every day, for years.  But then, when you've nothing else to say, I suppose it passes the time.

Rather like you then!

Nobody can accuse you of having nothing to say: the trouble is, it's all tosh!   

[Owlswing]

The deity is far from loving, it doesn't know the meaning of the word, as has been pointed out by myself and others many times!

Every day, for years.  But then, when you've nothing else to say, I suppose it passes the time.

Rather like you then!

Nobody can accuse you of having nothing to say: the trouble is, it's all tosh!   

You should know - you spout it all the time and in vastly greater quantities that just about anyone else posting here.

[BashfulAnthony]

The deity is far from loving, it doesn't know the meaning of the word, as has been pointed out by myself and others many times!

Every day, for years.  But then, when you've nothing else to say, I suppose it passes the time.

Rather like you then!

Nobody can accuse you of having nothing to say: the trouble is, it's all tosh!   

You should know - you spout it all the time and in vastly greater quantities that just about anyone else posting here.

Go and hug a tree, or something !   

[Owlswing]

The deity is far from loving, it doesn't know the meaning of the word, as has been pointed out by myself and others many times!

Every day, for years.  But then, when you've nothing else to say, I suppose it passes the time.

Rather like you then!

Nobody can accuse you of having nothing to say: the trouble is, it's all tosh!   

You should know - you spout it all the time and in vastly greater quantities that just about anyone else posting here.

Go and hug a tree, or something !   

No witty insult to come back with? Oh I am so sad for you!

"Tree-huggers" - this epithet was coined for the "New-Age" eco-warriors who tried to fight the growing destruction of the landscape by chaining themselves to trees. These were mostly not pagan but a few were and thus pagans are tarred with the same brush.

[Outrider]

3) were written in order to help the exiles understand afresh the difference between the God of the Jews and the gods of Babylon.

So actually very little eh ??

No, actually very much, Nick.  Put succinctly, the God of the Jews was a loving Creator God, with all that that meant for humanity: the Babylonian gods were gods who created things through destruction.

That was the 'loving creator' that wiped out humanity down to a single family, destroyed every living thing in Sodom and Gomorrah, arranged a situation to justify his slaughter of the firstborn of Egypt and created people with curiosity then turned people into pillars of salt for looking at something happening... that's the sort of 'love' that abusive spouses demonstrates. It might be a form of love, but it sure as hell isn't one you want to celebrate or be proud of.

O.

[wigginhall]

Often cited is the reference to the 'waters above the firmament' (Gen. 1: 7).   Of course, there have been various attempts to read it as atmosphere or clouds, and so on.   And it's a mistake only if you take it literally!

[floo]

3) were written in order to help the exiles understand afresh the difference between the God of the Jews and the gods of Babylon.

So actually very little eh ??

No, actually very much, Nick.  Put succinctly, the God of the Jews was a loving Creator God, with all that that meant for humanity: the Babylonian gods were gods who created things through destruction.

That was the 'loving creator' that wiped out humanity down to a single family, destroyed every living thing in Sodom and Gomorrah, arranged a situation to justify his slaughter of the firstborn of Egypt and created people with curiosity then turned people into pillars of salt for looking at something happening... that's the sort of 'love' that abusive spouses demonstrates. It might be a form of love, but it sure as hell isn't one you want to celebrate or be proud of.

O.

As I have said on many occasions, and will continue to say, Satan couldn't be any worse than the oh so 'loving' deity in the Bible!

[Hope]

So you're agreeing that Genesis is not scientifically accurate?

Have I ever said that it was or is meant to be?  The Genesis account is a theological account of why God created; not a scientific account of how.

[Maeght]

From the point of view of the author of the Pentateuch, the light on the first day probably came from God Himself. The pillar of fire (Exodus 13:21) that provided light for the Israelites is an example. Exodus 14:20 shows how, during the night, it brought darkness to the Egyptians and light to the Israelites. So it was effectively "separating  light and dark" like in Genesis 1:4.

So is it scientifically accurate?

[Hope]

The deity is far from loving, it doesn't know the meaning of the word, as has been pointed out by myself and others many times!

Yes, this has been pointed out innumerable times by your good self, Floo, but never with any plausible evidence for the assertion.

[Hope]

So is it scientifically accurate?

Maeght, I think the problem with the question is that science has to do with knowledge.  'Why' something happens is no less 'scientific' than 'how'.  Whilst the narrow understanding of science is adhered to by some, we will never gain any depth or breadth of 'knowledge'