h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hello again, Gif:

How was the weekend?

Looks like I may have inadvertently struck a nerve; so, for that, I am sorry.

No, I don't think you're close-minded so much as I see you as entrenched in a 21st Century mindset, but just a little too deep to see out. It's just that I've noticed that all the conversation - as much as I am enjoying it - leads us back to the same issue. That issue is not "which is right" or "which is true", but whether there are significant differences between two warring factions or whether there is simply miscommunication.

I expect that people who believe that Genesis is wrong because it disagrees with science too often argue from the fact that Genesis does not read exactly like a 21st Century textbook. Yet, when I attempt a semblance of retranslating it into 21st Centry scientific terms, I'm not being fair.

I rarely find those who are even flexible enough to admit to the possibility of translation/interpretation errors even when then don't believe that the bible is the "inspired word of God". Well, it either is the inspired word, or it is not. You cannot have it both ways. If it's a work of man, it is subject to error; pure and simple.

I do regret, deeply, that you are upset

[To me, the close-mindedness seems rather the other way round, which tends to be the way in 'stuck' discussions. ]

Of course you would, and of course you do. The difference is that I have never take one side against the other like you have. I was just pointing out defendable similarities in the two stories as they are told. I have even admitted that the similarities may be in the eye of the beholder.

You, one the other hand, are much more inflexible. Whether I chose Genesis because it is the origin story I know best is beside the point. If I had been taught that the Earth was being carried on the back of a turtle and that the sun was carried across the sky on a golden chariot, I assure you that I would not attempt to 'spin' these myths in to a reflection of modern science.

[Although all those reasons are possible, you've given little reason to think that any of them is correct. I'm not putting up any mental barriers here. I've tried to show that other creation accounts can also be creatively interpreted (using the imagination you've told me I'm lacking) as being accurate if you're prepared to stretch them enough.]

Now THIS is the Gif I thought I was conversing with!
Yes, I could even creatively interpret almost anything. The trick is that not so much needs to be overly creative when you have vague-ish statements (such as Genesis' void, light, and waters and other conceptual terms), instead of hard-wired sentences that talk of mountains and giants and turtles and chariots.

So your Norse myth was not very compelling, not a problem. I'd simple need a myth that starts with either nothing or a point in space-time where only one chunk of 'stuff' existed; and have it followed by something that can be interpreted as energy, expansion, and the functions of gravity.

Personally, I'd love to know that there are hundreds of them. It would go to support my thesis, don't you think?

I hope that you don't think I'm unappreciative of your Mongol tribesman (and I loved the tongue-in-cheek!), but I was concerned that the most clearly and specifically elaborated upon parts of the message never came through. I was mostly interested in how he would try to describe the speed of light, the compression of particles in the sun, and fusion.

I truly appreciate your (I'm going to use the word admissions, without the "you're giving up" or "you're admitting that I was right kind of context) admissions on the words that you feel most significant and arguable. I don't consider days a central aspect for the simple reason that no one could be given a vision in days if days did not yet exist. I see it more as steps or stages, or even the number of nights of visions that they would have had to represent.

I've read manuals that say Step 1, Step 2, etc, to think that I must get up from my chair and take a literal Step every time I push a button on my computer. That's the kind of literal-mindedness that I see being at the root of may problems, theological or not.

[... I did actually concede several posts ago - if primitive people were describing a liquid, gas or plasma, they might well describe it as 'watery'. It simply doesn't follow from that that when primitive people say 'water' they actually mean gas or plasma - they may just mean water. I've asked you time and again what reason you have to think that the original author meant 'galactic gas clouds', ...]

My profound apologies, but I don't even remember that!

I'll definitely reread it, and thank you at the same time. I can't, without the context, even imagine why I would have responded in exactly that way. But,... while I'm sure that Hebrew has many perfectly good words for many things, we cannot know the lexicon of the writer at the time, much less why one word might be chosen over another. If my point has any validity, it would probably require that language was not the tool used to communicate. Genesis does not say, "and God said unto me...". The recipient is not identified at all. Moses (according to the story) heard what amounted to words from a burning bush and atop a mountain. Genesis has no such character.

If you or I was "shown" what creation looked like (as I described in the two-minute Star Wars scenario), scale would have been indetectable. a 'small' universe looks just like a 'vast' universe when there is no scale.

For the same reason, my thesis would also mean to no time-scale was really present as well, but was inferred or interpreted by the writer. It's not so much that I disagree, but (like much of the conjecture) don't feel that it would have been necessary or possible to use words that would communicate the concepts involved any more clearly.

I'll also admit that I don't know how these visions or inspirations were supposed to work. My impression is that they would not include things like tastes and smells, tactile sensations, scale or clocks. All that would be left would be sights and/or sounds. So, since we're not talking about hearing voices, I'm left with the (marginal) conviction that they would be almost purely visual. The Hebrew had words for mist and rain, but I don't know about things like fumes.

On the earth before light subject, I really don't think you can claim that it 'states' that, rather it is how you interpret the English text. I insist that a god would be more likely to say "In the beginning I created Everything", and then go about telling or showing what that creation looked like. One can hardly have a void if they already created the heavens and the earth; to me, that's just common sense.

[You've also told me I am 'unable to get my head out of the 21st century', but I would ask you whether that doesn't apply equally to you? When you read Genesis, aren't you trying to fit it to your 21st century ideas, rather than to see what the bronze-age authors actually meant when they read it? Isn't that, in fact, the whole core of your argument? I would say that I have made considerably more effort to see what the original authors of Gen 1 probably meant - you have restricted yourself to what you feel they should have meant or must have meant, with no explanation of how you come to that conclusion other than some very stretched analogies.]

But I've only said that as you have proved that you continually look at other times and impose your 21st century knowledge into how things could have or should have been said or explained. When I said that GtI would not have understood the moving pictures on the screen, of course he knew what a painting, but that is only a natural segue to pictures or moving pictures if you had been born in the last two hundred years. Most societies, when first confronted with a form of photography, viewed it as magic, voodoo, or satanistic. This is the type of walking in their shoes that I felt I was okay at, and at which you were struggling.

I am sorry that I brought up Genesis 2, if you felt I was trying to use it to bolster anything. I've contended from the beginning that the Genesis creation story is all that concerned me. I just thought that it added a bit of salt and pepper to the meal. I've also been quite honest that my belief is many of the biblical stories were lifted from other religious tales. Of course, the things you listed are not my claims.

The Garden of Eden story may be part of an important message, and it wouldn't matter from where it generated, but it doesn't concern me. However, you should know that some stories in the bible have a historical basis, no matter how badly recorded. The Noachian(?) flood, for example, is a historical event; except that it didn't cover the entire planet. It wasn't the only flood, or the only story of floods, any more than other biblical stories that have parallels with stories of previous religions. So, let's not assume that everything in it is true or that everything is false.

Again, a minor correction. I didn't create a list that discussed land from water, but stuff from void and energy. This is the point at which 'biblical account scores over others'.

Sky and Sea, is a lot more than void; especially since the sky seems to have been able to support birdlife if it had been created.

For Pan Gu, he already had heaven and earth (with no clue where it came from) and was inside a black egg with an axe. Does this sound like Nothing and a Big Bang?

Vodun's entry begins "Damballah (Sky-serpent loa and wise and loving Father archetype) created all the waters of the earth. In the form of a serpent, the movement of his 7,000 coils formed hills and valleys on earth and brought forth stars and planets in the heavens. He forged metals from heat and sent forth lightning bolts to form the sacred rocks and stones."

"All the waters of the Earth", suggests that the earth came first, and that later came stars and planets which also necessitates the existence of the 'heavens' (and of course that the serpent's 7,000 coils were physical coils. That's a lot of 'stuff' and very little void.

Why would any of these be considered even close? If they were closer than Genesis, I might try making a point for their validity, but that is not the case. If you really think that Chaos equals Void, didn't the Hebrew's have a word for Chaos?

I don't mind the exercise, and I appreciate the attempt; but I would only consider them if I thought that the universe begain with the appearance of land and water. You've actually bolstered my opinion that there are not going to be many that start with emptiness and fill with energy.

I keep getting questions as to why I use this or that as a measure, when I've made no such statements. You must be projecting on me parts of another conversation. I believe that the point where Genesis scores is a void and 'let there be light'. In this it surpasses and predates all modern science. Until the last two hundred years, science believed in a steady-state universe (even Einstein); and NOBODY believed it began with a Bang. Then Genesis and the universe say 'SURPRISE! I was waiting for you to find that out!)

[On a deeper level, why have you chosen the creation of land as a measure? Could it be because this is a point at which you think the Biblical account scores over others? Why not choose, say, the age of the universe? Or the concept of binary stars? Could it be because you think other accounts are more accurate here? Isn't your unconscious bias showing here?]

Nope, it has nothing to do with land, I wouldn't expect a god to concern itself with how we calculate the age of the universe. 13.5 billion years? What's a year? Ours are arbitrary units of measure based on local phenomena. I've told you that I don't think of these things from a 21st century point of view. You have to be more versatile, creative, and flexible than that.

[Finally, please note you have contradicted yourself here. You are trying to interpret the same verse both to mean a literal formation of land and water, and to be a distorted description of the accretion of matter into galaxies. This is the kind of thing that makes it so difficult for me to see any reality behind Genesis 1 - even your best examples are so vague that you could interpret them in almost any way you want.]

Point noted, and of course appreciated. I understand the difficulties. Yes, even the best examples are based on some vagueness which I have attributed to vocabulary and translation (and interpretation). That, though, is part of the fun of examining arguments from different sides, different times, different viewpoints, and musing on what the true descrepencies might be.

You know that both Einsteinian and Quantum Physics do a good job of describing the universe, and that they are almost mutually exclusive in some ways. Why should we expect that a thousand year old text should agree any more clearly?

[However, it does rather sound like your definition of 'close-minded' is 'not agreeing with me'. There's a difference between me being close-minded and you failing to make a case. All I've asked is that you give a reason to think your interpretation is correct.]

I understand why you might say that, but perhaps it's not entirely fair. I'm content to know you don't agree, and apologise if I've not been able to make as strong a case as I see in my mind's eye. It would not be your failing, if that's all it was. As you have pointed out, there were points where you have said, "I could grant you that, but..." which is fine. But, I'd come along as an olive branch between warring factions and suggested maybe there's not quite as much room for vehement disagreement as you've thought (not you personally, of course; the collective 'you'). An open-minded, compromise-seeking person might say, 'well then, I don't really agree, and you certainly haven't convinced me; but perhaps we need not argue or ridicule one another's position."

Yes, that's too much to ask for; I know.

[I assure you, you do not sound like a fence-sitter. My position is not entrenched, because I can tell you exactly what evidence would be needed to change my mind. What evidence would be needed to change yours?]

This is very interesting! What evidence would you need? And, change your mind about what? This is not about trying to change your mind. I'm still just expressing an opinion, which by itself can be neither right nor wrong until it's measured up against facts.

If we have a disagreement, then it appears to be with the burden of proof issue that either of us would accept as enough to see a correlation between the stories. For me, that was easy. I already see it. So, what would have to change, either in the original text of Genesis (and its English translation) or in scientific theory for you to say to yourself "Hmm, that sounds reasonably close; probably meaningless, but reasonably close."

["why would you expect the bible to try and cover all the physics behind the creation of a universe" I wouldn't. You told me it did, and I disagreed. That's where this conversation started.]

Another unfortunate case of an not-entirely accurate attribution to my statement (unless I remember poorly). I said that I saw a distinct parallel in the two stories of creation; and probably added at a nearly point-for-point basis. You disagreed, and that is, indeed, where the conversation started.

I may have been fooling myself into thinking that you wanted to see where I saw it. Not to change your mind, but to understand mine. I can certainly understand all you've said and all the objections. Unfortunately, I can't find many who understand the way my mind sees it, even in theory.

[I left 'energy' blank as I was still thinking about it as I suddenly had to dash off. The Bible certainly describes some form of energy, just as it certainly describes some forms of matter. I've already pointed out I think it's the wrong type of energy, and 'energy' is so vague as to be meaningless. Nor does it come before the first mention of matter, which seemed to be the main point in your argument. As I mentioned, it looks like we'll have to agree to disagree on that point. Unfortunately, when I suggested that you responded by declaring me 'close-minded'.]

Well, 'type of energy' doesn't seem to me too tough a question, since the only form of energy with which the human eye comes equipped to deal is visible light; that's all we'd see no matter what else was present. You wouldn't expect lightning, since there would be no place for the static electricity to accumulate and nothing for it to jump to; and, even then, the only part we see of lightning is the flash of the visible light component.

Still intersting, and still appreciative of your time,



BTW: I've gone back to hootoo and searched the text for the word 'close' and the word 'minded'. I could not find a place where I used them to refer to you, at least not anywhere near the time you suggest I did. So, I feel you may again be attributing to me things I did not write.

Oh, Dawson!? Just me being thick. I was thinking of Dawkins

Hi FT,

Weekend wasn't bad, had to do a reading at someone's wedding. How was yours?



The bits that I felt were describing me as 'close-minded' were:

"I feel that I am open-minded about this, but you seem to have an intractable opinion that no parallelism exists where it is obvious to me that it does."

and

"This is a problem I find with many who have entrenched themselves in an opinion. The mind shuts down on so many levels when the imagination is not continually allowed to breath."

If you didn't mean it that way, then I apologise for getting upset, but that's how it read to me. I did think it was slightly out of character for you to make such a personal attack.

I did think the dabate was between the two of us, so I don't know why you see yourself as a neutral arbiter between 2 sides - or who the 'plural you' on my side is supposed to be. (Unless you've realised that 'Giford' is actually a pseudonym for a collective of maverick geniuses who post to H2G2 between collecting Nobels.)

I'm going to put my responses to your point-by-point points (if you see what I mean) first, but since there are only 2 main threads that I think are relevant to the discussion, I've highlighted them at the bottom.

*****

"I have never take one side against the other like you have. I was just pointing out defendable similarities in the two stories as they are told. I have even admitted that the similarities may be in the eye of the beholder."

This is not the impression I got. It seems you are staunchly defending the idea that the Genesis 1 account is as good a description of the formation of the universe as could be expected.

*****

"I assure you that I would not attempt to 'spin' these myths in to a reflection of modern science...Yes, I could even creatively interpret almost anything."

So am I understanding you right - you could do this for other myths, but you wouldn't? Isn't this you giving Gen 1 preference over other myths?

*****

"I'd simple need a myth that starts with either nothing or a point in space-time where only one chunk of 'stuff' existed; and have it followed by something that can be interpreted as energy, expansion, and the functions of gravity."

http://www.dreamscape.com/morgana/ariel.htm (you'll need to scroll down to 'Hindu'), http://www.dreamscape.com/morgana/ophelia.htm (scroll down to 'Sikh' or 'Tahitian'), http://www.aaanativearts.com/article579.html, possibly http://www.dreamscape.com/morgana/cordelia.htm ('Maya') and several African myths. Again, that's a few minutes on Google - I am sure there are many, many more.

"Personally, I'd love to know that there are hundreds of them. It would go to support my thesis, don't you think?"

Not if your thesis is that only the Gen 1 account claims this.

*****

"I've read manuals that say Step 1, Step 2, etc, to think that I must get up from my chair and take a literal Step every time I push a button on my computer. That's the kind of literal-mindedness that I see being at the root of may problems, theological or not."

Trouble is that the Biblical account is specific that these ARE days - they have a dawn and a dusk. It's more like a dance manual that says "take two steps, putting one foot in front of the other".

*****

"a 'small' universe looks just like a 'vast' universe when there is no scale."

But God could have shown scale if he wanted. A simple 'zoom' would have done.

*****

"I insist that a god would be more likely to say "In the beginning I created Everything", and then go about telling or showing what that creation looked like. One can hardly have a void if they already created the heavens and the earth; to me, that's just common sense."

This sounds like what it's all about to me - your insistance that God must have done it a certain way that happens to explain the discrepancies in the Bible. Note that using your logic above, that if something is mentioned as being in existence before God created it, ALL creation myths could be said to begin with a void. Let's look again at the opening of the Gen 1 account:

"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."

So it's the earth that's 'void', and we already have 'waters'. The natural interpretation is that earth and seas already existed. This is backed up by the fact that God never creates the Earth at a later stage - dry land appears when the waters are drawn together.

That's not only the natural reading for a 21st century schizoid man - it's the natural reading for a bronze-age man too.

*****

"Most societies, when first confronted with a form of photography, viewed it as magic, voodoo, or satanistic."

That's very different from saying that they didn't know what a photo was, or that they wouldn't have thought it worthy of comment.

*****

"the things you listed are not my claims."

Glad we're clear on that, that's where I thought you were coming from originally.

*****

"The Noachian(?) flood, for example, is a historical event"

A distinctly dubious claim, even if you're referring to the flooding of the Black Sea.

*****

""All the waters of the Earth", suggests that the earth came first, and that later came stars and planets which also necessitates the existence of the 'heavens'"

Aren't you arguing exactly what I've said about the problems with the Bible account?

*****

"If you really think that Chaos equals Void, didn't the Hebrew's have a word for Chaos?"

Yes, it's translated 'formless' in Genesis, not sure what you mean by this.

*****

"Until the last two hundred years, science believed in a steady-state universe"

Correct. I will grant that a clear parallel between Genesis and science is that Genesis says the universe HAS a start. Would you grant that many other creation myths - in fact pretty much all creation myths - say exactly the same?

*****

"What's a year? Ours are arbitrary units of measure based on local phenomena."

Still perfectly good as a measure of time though. You're the one arguing that the Genesis account has to use earth vocab, remember?

*****

"You know that both Einsteinian and Quantum Physics do a good job of describing the universe, and that they are almost mutually exclusive in some ways. Why should we expect that a thousand year old text should agree any more clearly?"

Only if it's divinely inspired. I don't expect it to, and you found a point where it doesn't.

*****

"What evidence would you need? And, change your mind about what?"

To change my mind about whether the Genesis 1 account is an accurate description of history I would need something like the following:

Science demonstrates that the Earth was created in 6 days (e.g. by all rocks having the same radiometric age)

Science demonstrates that all sea animals were created separately from all land animals (e.g. different basic biochemistry)

Obvious errors in the Genesis account are shown to be mistranslations or alterations to a better original (e.g. plants appearing before the sun, or 'day with a dawn and a dusk' meaning something other than 24 hours).

Etc.

What evidence would convince you that Gen 1 is no more accurate than other creation myths?

*****

"the only form of energy with which the human eye comes equipped to deal is visible light"

Or movement - kinetic energy. The human ear is capable of detecting sound energy. Most human body parts - including the eye - are capable of detecting heat energy and pressure.

*****

"Oh, Dawson!? Just me being thick. I was thinking of Dawkins"

In that case I don't know why you describe him that way.

*****







To sum up what I see as the important points here:

1) When you've attempted to pick a specific point where Gen 1 is more accurate than other myths, such as starting with nothing, I've easily been able to find several other accounts that make the same claim. Most of the other points of similarity are so vague that any myth can be interpreted to contain them.

2) You seem to treat Gen 1 to different standards of proof than other accounts - for example, light appearing after the Earth and water is something to be explained away in Gen 1, whereas claims that something existed before the first mentioned act of the creator in other accounts are errors in those accounts showing they are wrong.

Obvious and major errors in Gen 1 ('days', firmament) are skipped over, but equally major errors in other myths (e.g. talk of physical gods) rule those other myths out. You need a single standard by which you can judge all myths, including Gen 1, in order for this to be remotely convincing to a neutral reader.

3) Likewise, you are quick to claim that errors in Gen 1 must be due to mistranslation, lack of vocab, etc., yet you've never applied the same logic to other myths. Example: wouldn't primitive man, upon seeing the grandeur of the universe, be prone to anthropomorphise it, and describe it as the actions of the gods he was most familiar with?

As long as you have to support your case by applying different standards to Gen 1 and all other myths, it cannot be convincing.

Gif

Mornin' Gif:

Sorry for the delay in answering. All sorts of 'just life' cropping up. My car went dead for two days in some kind of protest, a birthday dinner out that turned into call-in and a makeup restaurant meal, long hours on a silly project. That sort of thing.

Glad to hear the weekend went well.

[I did think the dabate was between the two of us, so I don't know why you see yourself as a neutral arbiter between 2 sides - or who the 'plural you' on my side is supposed to be. (Unless you've realised that 'Giford' is actually a pseudonym for a collective of maverick geniuses who post to H2G2 between collecting Nobels.) ]

Aha! Then my suspicions are confirmed!

Truly the discussion is between us, but I felt that the larger debate was between the entrenched positions of Only Science and Only Theology.

["I have never take one side against the other like you have. I was just pointing out defendable similarities in the two stories as they are told. I have even admitted that the similarities may be in the eye of the beholder."

This is not the impression I got. It seems you are staunchly defending the idea that the Genesis 1 account is as good a description of the formation of the universe as could be expected. ]

Yes, but that is what I mean by not taking just one side. Genesis does seem (to me) to be a 'good a description' as I would expect, given the time and such as I've described. I don't insist that science must be wrong where there is apparent disagreement, only that I can honestly say that any disagreements may be superficial or just errors in communication. That's not taking a side, its a recognition that agreement between them may be possible. I'm not arguing FOR either side over the other, but acting as an arbiter of sorts. In our case though, it's like acting as an arbiter between a battle reinforced castle and no local attackers. Your position that the best description of creation is that of Science is defensible and solid, but no one (on this thread) is attacking it.

["Personally, I'd love to know that there are hundreds of them. It would go to support my thesis, don't you think?"

Not if your thesis is that only the Gen 1 account claims this. ]

Well, Gen 1 is a part of it; but it's really more about there being less disagreement between science and religion than the die-hard fundamentalists of either side would like to believe or admit. Kind of like the extremists who think the whole world should be (select one or make up your own) communists, muslim, christian, democratic states, captialists, socialists, pragmatists, et al.


[Trouble is that the Biblical account is specific that these ARE days - they have a dawn and a dusk. It's more like a dance manual that says "take two steps, putting one foot in front of the other".]

I understand how (and perhaps, why) you believe that days=days, where I say it may be more a writing style or convention of the time, or misunderstanding of confusing information. We obviously agree that we disagree on this point.

Have you never told anyone to 'wait just a second' or 'hold on a minute' and taken much longer? Don't think for a minute (ha ha) that these 'figures of speech' are a brand new concept. They are social phrases that have a meaning beyond the literal. Just as I can't condone the theists insisting that every word of the Bible be taken literally, I can't turn around and condone your taking these words literally. It wouldn't be very fair-minded of me.

["a 'small' universe looks just like a 'vast' universe when there is no scale."

But God could have shown scale if he wanted. A simple 'zoom' would have done.]

It's not a matter of 'could he show it', but 'would it be perceived'.

Zoom 'to' what? 'from' what? That's simply (sorry to sound condescending) silly. If I show you a stone against a solid black background, I could zoom out to 1/500x or 15,000x magnification and you would still have no idea of the actual size of the rock. You would not be able to tell if it was 1-inch across or one mile across. Without something to scale it to. Humans are simply incapable of discerning scale without a reference point.

[So it's the earth that's 'void', and we already have 'waters'. The natural interpretation is that earth and seas already existed. This is backed up by the fact that God never creates the Earth at a later stage - dry land appears when the waters are drawn together.

That's not only the natural reading for a 21st century schizoid man - it's the natural reading for a bronze-age man too. ]

That is a version of the translation. but that's exactly where I see it saying that earth did not yet exist. Try the rephrasing from:
"2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.
3 And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light."

to more modern-speak
"2 That which is now the earth was yet unformed and non-existent, and darkness was all that existed in the timeless everything; and the creator-entity of the critical event examined it."
And the creator-entity said, "SO(9) = eo ß µom E * dA + µ ß ¥ * ß ds : µo ß ^ J F(ma) dA + µo (d/dt) + ¥ ei * &E ds = (d/dt) * Gg + ß dA dA = Z * 0; and there was light."

[So am I understanding you right - you could do this for other myths, but you wouldn't? Isn't this you giving Gen 1 preference over other myths?]

Some, perhaps; but not the ones with backs of turtles, gods swallowing their godkins, or frost giants. I'm just not familiar enough with any others that may be as close. It's not a matter of giving preference, it's a matter of what is in my experience. The same goes for 'my science'; I only know that which I know. The rest I have to take on faith as I'm sure you must. None of us have reproduced all of science's experiments and proven it to ourselves. We believe those we trust, sometimes to our detriment.

[Trouble is that the Biblical account is specific that these ARE days - they have a dawn and a dusk. It's more like a dance manual that says "take two steps, putting one foot in front of the other".]

It is true. The translated book says, several times, "And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day." But examine that. It is always translated as a separate, stand-alone sentence, isn't it? It is only by convention we are taught that that this refers to 'a day in the life of god and the universe'. It could just as easily be "I had a vision that this happened. There was an evening and a morning, one day. The next day I had this vision. There was an evening and a morning, two days. The third day I had a vision..." This intepretation is just as valid, and a lot more sensible, than the one commonly considered. It's part of the 'thinking out of the box' thing that I mentioned several times.

There is nothing there that imposes that 'day' period upon the universe, just on the writer.

["Most societies, when first confronted with a form of photography, viewed it as magic, voodoo, or satanistic."

That's very different from saying that they didn't know what a photo was, or that they wouldn't have thought it worthy of comment.]

You must have read plenty of history, especially in regards to persecutions (of scientists and physicists, as well as others). Isn't it the most common reaction for man (before modern times) to reject anything new and out of their experience when first confronted with it? At first it's just outright 'brushing it off'(Aeroplanes? Bah, just a fad. TV? Can't be bothered). When pressed, it may reach the level of threat; it is then that the persecution begins.

["Until the last two hundred years, science believed in a steady-state universe"

Correct. I will grant that a clear parallel between Genesis and science is that Genesis says the universe HAS a start. Would you grant that many other creation myths - in fact pretty much all creation myths - say exactly the same? ]

First, thank you for that. Second, I'm simply not familiar with enough of the myths to say, but I suspect that 'pretty much all' is far to generous. I don't have any problem admitting that there are probably some percentage greater than represented by Genesis. Still, 'exactly the same' seems not entirely likely, but I'll grant that they'd be close enough to the same that I would not split hairs on the subject. After all, I'm not touting Genesis as a unique occurence.

["What's a year? Ours are arbitrary units of measure based on local phenomena."

Still perfectly good as a measure of time though. You're the one arguing that the Genesis account has to use earth vocab, remember? ]

I was refering to your suggestion that perhaps the theology that should be considered closest to the account by Science would be the one that most accurately communicates the age of the universe. [On a deeper level, why have you chosen the creation of land as a measure? Could it be because this is a point at which you think the Biblical account scores over others? Why not choose, say, the age of the universe? Or the concept of binary stars? Could it be because you think other accounts are more accurate here? Isn't your unconscious bias showing here?]

If it were just the creation 'of land', I'd cede the point; but we're still discussing a process through which the entire universe came into being (assuming, always, that we agree on that). And on the earth vocab, I don't think the Hebrew language has a term for 'binary stars'.

["You know that both Einsteinian and Quantum Physics do a good job of describing the universe, and that they are almost mutually exclusive in some ways. Why should we expect that a thousand year old text should agree any more clearly?"

Only if it's divinely inspired. I don't expect it to, and you found a point where it doesn't.]

I suspect that you DO expect Einsteinian and Quantom physics to agree, and rightly so. And that agreement would be a lot more clear, once established, than could possibly be said for those ancient texts unless they were retranslated with that new understanding in mind. I believe that each era must retranslate the past based on improvements in their knowledge of the people and times, and suited to the knowledge and languate of the people to which it communicates. (Probably why I feel so free in retranslating here.)

I loved the 'evidence' you cited as compelling enough to 'change your mind'. If you don't mind a question, that I fear may be misinterpreted; if those proofs were provided, do you really think you'd change your mind? I know that they won't happen, of course. I'm convinced the earth is billions of years old, but I'd like to know if you really feel that you're flexible enough on the subject to accept the proofs if they were given.

As for my 'proofs', it wouldn't take much. Just those things I'd already outlined. I don't hold 'only genesis' views on anything. (Makes me a better arbiter.)

["the only form of energy with which the human eye comes equipped to deal is visible light"

Or movement - kinetic energy. The human ear is capable of detecting sound energy. Most human body parts - including the eye - are capable of detecting heat energy and pressure. ]

No, No, and No. First, I only cited the eye, because the visual is all that genesis gives us; so I'm assuming that's all that was proferred.

On your other points: They eye is not capable of discerning movement or kinetic energy. It is only the image we perceive because of the light entering the eye that all us to perceive the movement, not the kinetic energy itself. The human ear is capable of detecting sound, but that is not a form of energy. It is a response to vibrations that have represent a transfer of energy, but the energy is physical not audio. The sound is just our brains translation of the vibrations.

As for the human body parts, the 'heat energy' is just another band of the light spectrum' and pressure is physical response again. I'm just not sure why the subject comes up. Are you suggesting that a 'divinely inspired book' on creation would require that the author be physically taken to the beginning of the universe and left suspended to suffer the energies of the big bang?

Dawkins: I have enjoyed listening to him. He is quite knowledgeable; just a bit of a nutter. I support his right to defend his position, but I feel he is often being intentionally dense when answering challenges; sometimes to the point of looking ridiculous.

[To sum up what I see as the important points here: ]
Point 1) Yes and no. Yes several other accounts make the same claim. No, not any myth can be reasonably interepreted to contain them. (This is, of course, in my opinion.)

Point 2) I've been as clear as I feel I can be on when, where, and how these discrepencies appear to me and how they may be resolved. Saying that they are 'wrong' is also an opinion when I've outlined how they may not be in disagreement to the science facts that we seem to agree upon.

Point 3) Tis not my job to try and apply logic to myths with which I have limited or no familiarity. It would be quite cheeky of me, in fact, to try to do so. That is my only reason. On primitive man (and, by that, I'm assuming that you mean even more primitive than the biblical authors), probably. Most gods, whether created out of fear of natural phenomena like volcanoes, lightning, earthquakes, or alligators or as part of an evolving philosophical bent, have had images made of them; some interpretation of them in physical form. These images are often humanoid, even if they may have characteristics of animals. Even Christianity has a tendency to give the impression that they imagine an white-bearded man. I suspect that most religions do this for similar reasons, knowing all the time that their god cannot really be depicted. Only the religions that worship their graven image differ in that regard.

OH!Well, then! Problem solved! If the reason that Gen 1 is not convincing has anything to do with applying different standards, No Problem! I'd be happy to apply the same standards to all myths. It is up to the individual myth whether it can stand up to such application of the standards.

Hi FT,

I had a pretty dull weekend myself, being dragged round household-shopping. Then I typed all this out & my PC crashed, so sorry if this seems rushed and/or disjointed!

I have no symapthy with your car. If you're not prepared to pay a fair wage, you have to expect industrial action of this sort.

I think I see what you mean about neutrality now. However, my case is not that science is the only possible method of finding out about history - I'm simply saying that the Genesis account doesn't match science. I don't think I'm in that castle you're attacking, I'm having a picnic 3 fields over and wondering what all the noise is about.


"Have you never told anyone to 'wait just a second' or 'hold on a minute'" - I've never told anyone to 'wait one minute, until the second hand of the clock has gone the whole way round the face', no. I'm told that the word translated 'day' is used elsewhere in the Bible to mean 'indefinite period of time' - but nowehere in Hebrew literature is the phrase about dusk and dawn used to mean anything other than a literal, 24-hour day. It's not taking the Bible literally that is the porblem with Biblical literalists - it's reading the Bible literally *and thinking it's accurate*.

"Zoom 'to' what? 'from' what?" - For example, from the Milky Way into Earth.

"That which is now the earth was yet unformed and non-existent, and darkness was all that existed in the timeless everything; and the creator-entity of the critical event examined it." - So if that's what you think the author meant, why isn't that what he wrote? I'm sure ancient Hebrew had perfectly good equivalents of all the words you've used. If he meant what you say he meant, why didn't he say what you say he meant?

"[Isn't this you giving Gen 1 preference over other myths?] Some, perhaps" - so we are agreed that if you give Genesis preference over other myths, you get better parallels between Genesis and science. My contention, of course, is that if you *don't* give Genesis preference, you don't get better parallels. I'm perfectly happy to concede that if you treat one myth by different rules, you may get different results. I'd go further, and say that the more different the rules, the more different the results.

"It [Biblical days] is always translated as a separate, stand-alone sentence, isn't it?" - Nope. Seventh day, for example.

"(Aeroplanes? Bah, just a fad. TV? Can't be bothered). When pressed, it may reach the level of threat; it is then that the persecution begins." - but this is not the same as not mentioning it. Indeed, persecution by opponents are all we have to tell us about many ancient philosophies (and several early branches of Christianity).

"I'm simply not familiar with enough of the myths to say" - Are we talking at cross purposes? Surely *all* creation myths start with nothing, otherwise they wouldn't be creation myths? Not sure what you mean here.

"I was refering to your suggestion that perhaps the theology that should be considered closest to the account by Science would be the one that most accurately communicates the age of the universe." - yes - so how does that invalidate 'year' as a perfectly good Hebrew word?

"I don't think the Hebrew language has a term for 'binary stars'." - nor does Dogon, but that doesn't stop them having a perfectly good - and accurate - legend that Sirius is a binary star. Even English has no pre-made custom term for binary stars - we've had to assemble one from two pre-existing words (both of which have equivalents in Hebrew). I can't see any reason ancient Hebrews could not have done the same. That's my problem with the 'lack of vocab' argument in a nutshell.

"I suspect that you DO expect Einsteinian and Quantom physics to agree, and rightly so." - No I don't. Both these are models of the universe, but they are not 100% accurate models. Presumably there is an underlying reality which they are trying to describe, but they are only models of it.

"I believe that each era must retranslate the past based on improvements in their knowledge of the people and times" - so what new knowledge of ancient Semites (I'm tired of writing 'Hebrews') have we discovered that would make you translate 'firmament' as something other than 'solid sky'? Or 'day' as something other than 'day'? Or are you in fact retranslating based on our improved understanding of science, rather than our improved understanding of bronze-age Semites?

"if those proofs were provided, do you really think you'd change your mind?" - Yes. What choice would I have? This is why I got so offended when (I thought) you accused me of being close-minded. I try very hard to follow where evidence and reason lead, and find it frustrating when people's response to me not agreeing with them is just to tell me that I haven't looked at the evidence.

"As for my 'proofs', it wouldn't take much. Just those things I'd already outlined." - Sorry, it's been a long conversation. What would it take to convince you that Genesis is not compatible with modern science?

"I only cited the eye, because the visual is all that genesis gives us; so I'm assuming that's all that was proferred." - Ah, circular logic. Why does the Bible only describe light? Because the vision was just that - visual. How do we know it was visual? Because the Bible only describes light.

"They eye is not capable of discerning movement ...The human ear is capable of detecting sound, but that is not a form of energy. ...the energy is physical not audio." - looks like we're going to have to disagree on some basic science as well.

"Are you suggesting that a 'divinely inspired book' on creation would require that the author be physically taken to the beginning of the universe and left suspended to suffer the energies of the big bang?" - No, but I don't see why a God who could create a visual vision couldn't throw in some surround sound and smellyvision too. Especially when the thing they are trying to show (the Big Bang) would not have been primarily visual.

Dawkins: Again, we'll have to disagree here unless you can give an example of Dawkins being 'intentionally dense' or looking ridiculous.

*****


Point 1) "No, not any myth can be reasonably interepreted to contain them." - Ok, fair enough, 'most myths'. Sloppy wording on my part, but otherwise the point remains.

Point 2) "I've been as clear as I feel I can be on when, where, and how these discrepencies appear to me and how they may be resolved." - but you have not said why you don't apply similar arguments to other myths. In fact you have done the reverse, and admitted that you give 'some preference' to Genesis.

Point 3) "Tis not my job to try and apply logic to myths with which I have limited or no familiarity." - But without doing just that, how can you say that Genesis is superior to those other myths?

"I'd be happy to apply the same standards to all myths." - and on that, we are agreed. The question for me is whether you are doing so. And the other question for me is, if you do so, whether Genesis turns out to be noticably better overall than other myths.

Gif

And a happy Monday to you, Gif:

Dull can be good. I went to a big box Tech store looking for a mini-mouse to use with my laptop, and made the mistake of taking company. We ended up buying a rather pricey computer with dual 64x 5000+ processors and a major video card for online RPGs. Oh, and I found my mini-mouse later at a bargain store.

Seems that cords are out of vogue, but I don't like being caught without fresh batteries for the cordless I've been using.

Sorry to hear about the PC. That's always a horrible experience. We've had them, that they always raise the stress level beyond any justifiable amount.

I can't blame you for your lack of auto-sympathy. As the song says "It ain't hard to get along with someone else's troubles, and they don't make you lose any sleep at night. As long as fate is out there bustin' somebody elses bubbles, everything's gonna be all right."

Still, have you been buying Petrol? Room and board is about all I can afford as wages! Still, a mate of mine says that we all make payments, either on the cost of the car, or the cost of the repairs. Another version of there's no free lunch.

On neutrality, I guess it (like beauty) is in the eye of the beholder. Yes, as our 'debate' winds down, we have what amounts to a difference of opinion on what 'match' means.

Not your castle? I could have sworn that someone was flinging dead cows at me as I passed it. Sorry I mistook the blighter for you!

"It's not taking the Bible literally that is the porblem with Biblical literalists - it's reading the Bible literally *and thinking it's accurate*."

This, at least is one area in which we agree.

["Zoom 'to' what? 'from' what?" - For example, from the Milky Way into Earth.]

It was my impression that we were referring to the Big Bang, itself. No scale there. Certainly, when it comes to a finished planet, some vision was possible. I'm not certain, however, how you explain to a primative that they are living on a round ball that to them is obviously vastly flat. Or, how you would 'inspire' them to write about something that would so be likely to get them stoned to death.

["That which is now the earth was yet unformed and non-existent, and darkness was all that existed in the timeless everything; and the creator-entity of the critical event examined it." - So if that's what you think the author meant, why isn't that what he wrote? I'm sure ancient Hebrew had perfectly good equivalents of all the words you've used. If he meant what you say he meant, why didn't he say what you say he meant?]

It is my opinion that this is what was written, to the extent that the vocabulary and grammar allowed. It is much less flowery than the other translation, but that was because the translators felt a need to impose that tone to the translation. I have to admit, that if I was forced to be succinct (and obviously, I make no such attempts in our thread ), it may well have come out like the popular translation. Very terse, that.

["[Isn't this you giving Gen 1 preference over other myths?] Some, perhaps" - so we are agreed that if you give Genesis preference over other myths, you get better parallels between Genesis and science. My contention, of course, is that if you *don't* give Genesis preference, you don't get better parallels. I'm perfectly happy to concede that if you treat one myth by different rules, you may get different results. I'd go further, and say that the more different the rules, the more different the results.]

I'm not sure that it amounts to better parallels BECAUSE I give Genesis preference. I just don't have the background to know of others that are as close or closer. Neither Alternate Religions nor Ancient Languages are part of my studies. Even physics is not a major portion of them.

["It [Biblical days] is always translated as a separate, stand-alone sentence, isn't it?" - Nope. Seventh day, for example.]

And, the only example. But that's just a matter of punctuation. For all I can tell, the translator got tired of the sing-song repetitions.

["I'm simply not familiar with enough of the myths to say" - Are we talking at cross purposes? Surely *all* creation myths start with nothing, otherwise they wouldn't be creation myths? Not sure what you mean here.]

This, if you'll pardon me, is the type of statement that previously had me concerned that you weren't reading my statements, but dismissing them. We already established that many 'creation' or theological myths start with plenty of mountains, rocks, giants, etc. scattered across a landscape of some sort. Now that place may be considered a 'heaven' of some sort, like Asgard; but even Asgard was across a bridge from our middle-earth.

Not *all* creation myths start with nothing. I thought we'd established that as a basic fact. Any time the creator-being is said to have 'taken' something and made something from it, they did not start with nothing.

["I was refering to your suggestion that perhaps the theology that should be considered closest to the account by Science would be the one that most accurately communicates the age of the universe." - yes - so how does that invalidate 'year' as a perfectly good Hebrew word? ]

Well, Year - like Day - only has a meaning in the context of a planet that spins as it orbits a star. Our days and years are different from every other planet in our solar system, and ours have changed over the long millenia. In what meaningful way could a god communicate the age of a planet or a universe to a people who had not even discovered the zero? And why would a god have done so? What 'earthly' good would the number have done them? It is not reasonably an integral part of the message. I fear you're still looking for a science book in a how-to manual.

["I don't think the Hebrew language has a term for 'binary stars'." - nor does Dogon, but that doesn't stop them having a perfectly good - and accurate - legend that Sirius is a binary star. Even English has no pre-made custom term for binary stars - we've had to assemble one from two pre-existing words (both of which have equivalents in Hebrew). I can't see any reason ancient Hebrews could not have done the same. That's my problem with the 'lack of vocab' argument in a nutshell.]

Oh, I totally understand that. Just imagine it in German! Except, I truly doubt that anyone was counting in binary, though I'm certain that they had a word for 'double' or 'twin'. Again, why would it have been included or considered important to a god that was trying to communicate more important information to his new charges? Why should we expect to find it there?

["I suspect that you DO expect Einsteinian and Quantom physics to agree, and rightly so." - No I don't. Both these are models of the universe, but they are not 100% accurate models. Presumably there is an underlying reality which they are trying to describe, but they are only models of it.]

I'm so very glad to hear this put in precisely the manner I would, except that I believe that as 'good models' they will eventually be seen as agreeing much like Newtonian and Einsteinian.

["I believe that each era must retranslate the past based on improvements in their knowledge of the people and times" - so what new knowledge of ancient Semites (I'm tired of writing 'Hebrews') have we discovered that would make you translate 'firmament' as something other than 'solid sky'? Or 'day' as something other than 'day'? Or are you in fact retranslating based on our improved understanding of science, rather than our improved understanding of bronze-age Semites?]

I'd like to think 'both'. The bible is not a history book, but it turns out to have some valid historical events within it. It's not meant to be a science book, and you know where I'm going from there. It's not meant to be a sociology book, but it sure provides insight into long dead societies.

As researchers dig out more secrets from the region, more and more information comes to light regarding what happened where and how. More understanding of what people lived through comes regularly from archeological digs. As bits and pieces of documents come to light, new understanding of the languages and idioms become apparent. Knowledge can be important for Knowledge's sake. And like the cartoon says "Knowledge is power".

Many works of early archeologists have come under question in recent years as discoveries are made that clarify things like lineages and languages. What was accepted is being questioned with fresh eyes and better tools.

Let me offer a more recent example of translation challenges. If you read Shakespeare (and I think we can agree that the span of time and language is relatively minor in comparison to biblical texts), you may find that you are forced (as I am) to depend on the researcher's notes to understand what a certain phrase was meant to convey. Here is a more-or-less contemporary author, speaking the 'same' language, and yet we rely on explanatory notes to explain the context of an odd phrase or choice of words.

Now, if you begin to read more than one 'researched' text of a Shakesperian play, you will find that the notes do not always agree. The meaning and context given by one English Literature Scholar can vary from that of another. So, how would we determine which was correct, by concensus? The best out of five? That's no way to determine translations. So here we have ONE persons multiple-level-translation of a difficult language from a long distant time, into a tongue that, frankly, we no longer speak.

Remember that they 10 Commandments, for example, don't REALLY start with 'Thou Shalt Not... " That was an English convention that 'attempts' to convey what the words really were.

["if those proofs were provided, do you really think you'd change your mind?" - Yes. What choice would I have? This is why I got so offended when (I thought) you accused me of being close-minded. I try very hard to follow where evidence and reason lead, and find it frustrating when people's response to me not agreeing with them is just to tell me that I haven't looked at the evidence.]

Understandable, and I accept my portion of the blame. I was glad to read that the evidence actually would make a difference, although neither you nor I feel that is ever going to happen in our lifetime.

["As for my 'proofs', it wouldn't take much. Just those things I'd already outlined." - Sorry, it's been a long conversation. What would it take to convince you that Genesis is not compatible with modern science?]

Actually, this was originally a question of what I would require of other myths to consider them as valid. They were: An Emptiness or Void, a Burst of Energy or Light, verbiage attempting to describe a coalescing of matter, some version of the early stages of an uninhabitable planet, and a series of stages discussing its population by various lifeforms culminating in the human race.

As for proofs that would convince me that Genesis is not compatible with science theory: The discovery that we live in a closed universe after all (not expanding; say perhaps, it is instead pulsing), dismissal of the universe's background radiation as a product of some other natural phenomenon than the big bang, the discovery that the emergence of man predates sea-life. In other words, not much.

["I only cited the eye, because the visual is all that genesis gives us; so I'm assuming that's all that was proferred." - Ah, circular logic. Why does the Bible only describe light? Because the vision was just that - visual. How do we know it was visual? Because the Bible only describes light.]

Not circular, really. It's just that this is why they call them 'visions'. They are supposed to be 'glimpses' into truths, not long conversations with give and take. The important thing again is that light is all that there would have been: No sound, No smell, No taste, and nothing to touch that could be safely touched if one had been present as opposed to 'given a vision'.

["They eye is not capable of discerning movement ...The human ear is capable of detecting sound, but that is not a form of energy. ...the energy is physical not audio." - looks like we're going to have to disagree on some basic science as well.]

Basic science is almost always wrong. That's why physicists rolled magnetism up with electricity to create Electro-Magnetism. Then Light was brought into the mix because it's all the same stuff. I would have thought that we were both sufficiently clear on the Four Fources thing (strong, weak, electro-magnetic, and gravity) that disagreement would be unlikely.

Then again, I may have been unnecessarily literal. Your body is better at detecting movement than your sight. The sight can be fooled, like when you're on a sitting train, and the train next to you starts to move. Your brain may interpret that as a confused sense that you are moving. The body can better tell when you are moving because of your inner ear, or when something that is moving hits it.

Some of our senses are more precise than others. Sight is all perception and interpretation (by the brain, of course). Other senses can provide instant feedback based on actually connecting with something. Much more reliable. If you've ever watched a magician, you'll know not to overly trust your eyes.

["Are you suggesting that a 'divinely inspired book' on creation would require that the author be physically taken to the beginning of the universe and left suspended to suffer the energies of the big bang?" - No, but I don't see why a God who could create a visual vision couldn't throw in some surround sound and smellyvision too. Especially when the thing they are trying to show (the Big Bang) would not have been primarily visual.]

{see response on circular logic and No smell, no sound, etc.}

[Dawkins: Again, we'll have to disagree here unless you can give an example of Dawkins being 'intentionally dense' or looking ridiculous.]

Not germaine or important. In fact, once again, just my opinion.

*****


[Point 1) "No, not any myth can be reasonably interepreted to contain them." - Ok, fair enough, 'most myths'. Sloppy wording on my part, but otherwise the point remains. ]

No problem. I've been just as guilty of sloppy wording.

[Point 2) "I've been as clear as I feel I can be on when, where, and how these discrepencies appear to me and how they may be resolved." - but you have not said why you don't apply similar arguments to other myths. In fact you have done the reverse, and admitted that you give 'some preference' to Genesis.]

Not really a preference, just greater familiarity.

[Point 3) "Tis not my job to try and apply logic to myths with which I have limited or no familiarity." - But without doing just that, how can you say that Genesis is superior to those other myths? ]

It's not important to me whether a superior version exists or not. Certainly if there was such a story, it would no more convince you that it is anything more than coincidence, would it?

["I'd be happy to apply the same standards to all myths." - and on that, we are agreed. The question for me is whether you are doing so. And the other question for me is, if you do so, whether Genesis turns out to be noticably better overall than other myths.]

At this point, it appears that it would have been helpful to hold such a discussion in a larger forum, to find examples offered by others; but you know how those can descend into madness!

At this point, I have to say that I feel pretty good about where we've arrived. Some level of mutual understanding of position has been reached. It's not important to me that no agreement of understanding is forthcoming.

And, if we can go through all this without a profound lack of respect, distrust, or disgust for one another, that is a fine testament to rational discussion.

How're you feeling?

Hi FT,

I think we've probably come about as close as we're going to to an agreement. There are obviously still places where we disagree, and there are also still places where I don't really see where you're coming from. On the other hand, there are also a few places where you have changed my thinking, albeit not on the central issues we've been talking about.

For a start, I'd never thought of myself as a 'Biblical literalist' - but I guess I do think the Bible should be read to say what it seems to say, even though I don't believe that what it says is accurate. What a bizarre thought.

I also do now think that Creationism should be taught in school science lessons (remember that!?). I'm sure there was something else too, but it's escaped me for now.

Perhaps it's time to sum up what I've got from the conversation so far, and try to ditch some of those lengthy point-by-point discussions we seem to have got into.

I'm still distinctly not sold on the idea that the discrepancies between the Genesis 1 account and reality can be explained by poor translation, a lack of vocabulary, dodgy punctuation (written ancient Hebrew has no punctuation or vowels, btw, so is notoriously dodgy to read), etc. Some of your points are not likely but are plausible - perhaps the first verse is a header, perhaps 'waters' means 'cosmic plasma' - but others are less so (e.g. 'days'). Even with all these potential reasons, you don't seem to have found a reasonable explanation for what a 'firmament' is.

I'd also like to point out the big difference between saying it 'might have been' an error in translation and showing that it actually *was* a translation error.

You also seem to impose restrictions on how God could have communicated - sight only, must be succinct - for reasons that I don't follow, or assign ad hoc motivations to God, e.g. science isn't central to his aims, though you never say what is (blueprints for the temple and rules on animal sacrifice would seem a high priority judging by the rest of the OT!). Here's an example: "The important thing again is that light is all that there would have been" - As I've pointed out before, there would have been heat 300,000 years before there was visible light, and there would have been sound at the same moment as light. Although it seems to have become somehow central to your argument that the vision was visual-only, I can't see any reason why an omnipotent deity would feel restricted to silent images.

Both of the above sound to me more like excuses for why the Bible doesn't match reality than explanations of how it does match.

I'm not convinced that all other myths are less accurate than Genesis if allowed the same leeway. You seem to treat Gen 1 (Jenny?) to different standards than other myths. You've conceded this (though you seemed to go back on it a little at the end of your last post), but you're never going to convince me unless you subject Jenny to at least as harsh criticism as you do other myths. Theories are tested by trying to unpick them mercilessly and seeing if they stand up, not by wrapping them in cotton wool.

As an example of a specific place where I think your (unconscious?) bias in favour of the Bible shows, take a look at your lists of acceptable evidences that a myth is accurate: "An Emptiness or Void, a Burst of Energy or Light, verbiage attempting to describe a coalescing of matter, some version of the early stages of an uninhabitable planet, and a series of stages discussing its population by various lifeforms culminating in the human race." - This isn't a list of what would make a creation story credible - it's a list of things in Genesis that you found impressive. Why haven't you listed the age of the Earth, the absence of a firmament, etc? Again, you seem to be being rather biased here - the criteria you choose to judge myths are based on the criteria you know Genesis will meet.

On top of that, even by your own Bibliocentric (is that a word?) standards, the Hindus give you a run for your money, since they are much clearer about there being nothing to begin with, and also mention heat, rather than light: http://www.boloji.com/hinduism/006.htm They're also notably better on the age of the Earth (4.3 billion years - and after all, what's 300 million years between friends?) and have a story compatible with evolution (Vishnu's avatars come in roughly the order of evolution, particularly those that appear in the first time-cycle: fish, turtle (amphibian), boar (mammal), human). Plus, their myth rhymes! Yes, you'd have to be generous to see 'coalescing of matter' in this, but then again the same is true of the Bible.

With your potential disproofs of Geneis, I don't see much of a correlation to the text with some: "The discovery that we live in a closed universe ... dismissal of the universe's background radiation as a product of some other natural phenomenon than the big bang". If you're saying that your faith in the Bible is dependent on the Big Bang, I can only respond that you must be unique in the world! (But you knew that.) Are you really saying there is *no other way* to interpret Jenny than as a description of the BB? Does it *really* say the universe is closed in Jenny?

With your final example, "the discovery that the emergence of man predates sea-life," you return to the same pro-Bible stance, seeming to judge only its strengths and not its weaknesses. What about the discovery that aquatic life predates land plants? Or that stars (including the Sun) predate plants? Again, aren't your prejudices overcoming your judgement here? I genuinely can't see why you don't take these as obvious errors in the ordering of the Genesis account that show it not to be based on a genuine understanding of the history of the world, but you would take human origins to be so. Could it possibly be because you are committed in advance to only picking areas where you know the Bible doesn't conflict with science?

*****

Looks like we're agreed on Point 1 - many other myths are just as accurate (or inaccurate) as Genesis.

[Point 2) Not really a preference, just greater familiarity. - Is there a difference? Aren't you saying that if you were more familiar with other myths, you might find close (or closer) parallels between them and science? I did take the phrase 'some preference' from earlier in the post, where you agreed with it.

[Point 3) if there was such a story, it would no more convince you that it is anything more than coincidence, would it? - depends how close it was. See my list of example proofs from a few posts back.

*****

Random comments:

"Just imagine it in German!" -

"The bible is not a history book, but it turns out to have some valid historical events within it." - True, but it also has a lot of nonsense pretending to be history, particularly anything prior to about 650 BC. Which includes Genesis. There's a whole other debate here (and in fact I just invited someone from the PR thread on my 'How to Make a Prophecy' article to debate that on my Personal Space - feel free to chip in if anything happens!). Point taken on Shakespeare, though note that a) he's often deliberately ambiguous, and b) English changed a lot around the period he was writing. Writers from 100 years later need little or no gloss, writers from 100 years earlier cannot be understood at all by modern readers.

"Remember that they 10 Commandments, for example, don't REALLY start with 'Thou Shalt Not...' " - depends whether you mean Exodus 20 or Exodus 34.

I'm not sure that that was any less lengthy than usual! I do think it sums up where I've ended up after all this.

I realise a lot of that is phrased as questions, and I'm not really expecting you to answer them - they're just to give a feel of what I'm left thinking. In other words, I have just as many unanswered questions after 80+ posts as I did at the start.

Gif

And now a word from our sponsor: "Let there be dark"

I believe that we have come, not to an agreement, but an understanding (much more important and satisfying).

I have to wonder about the role of a Biblical Literalist. It would seem that two types adopt it: the believer, because they are taught that they must, and the non-believer, because it's easier to ignore or argue against (and for some, like Dawkins, to scoff at or make fun of for all it's 'not matching the science we feel we know').

My attempt at an alignment is, at best, an attempt to take away the right to outright ridicule.

Odd that you should feel that Creationism should be taught in school when I feel the opposite. As part of a relgious education in a parochial school, maybe; as part of comparative religions, no problem; otherwise, no, because it ain't science. It comes from a message or manual not intended for explaining so much as enlightening a people that did not yet have the science to have figured it out.

Oh good! A summation!

I agree that most of my problem is not being a translator of ancient texts. I am stuck with the translations already at hand.

On sight, I'm reminded of the old adage: a picture is worth a thousand words. An ephemeral being has no vocal chords, so there's no reason not to think that selecting one good sensory input would be sufficient. Sight, to me, makes more senses than sound.

No, I don't treat Genesis differently. I'm not trying to convince you that it is! How many times must I explain that? You keep insisting on putting these words in my mouth when the only reason I don't include others is my lack of familiarity with them. I don't propose that Jenny is any more accurate than any but the ones that begin with obvious 'Stuff'. The others (whichever they may be) might be just as accurate which may tend to suggest that there is a mastermind behind the whole thing, giving the same message to all the peoples.

Again, to communicate the true age of the universe through a vision would necessitate taking as long as the universe had been around. And it's not germaine. And it would not add one whit to the message. And, that size of number would have been seen as ludicrously meaningless. The rest is based on definitions which would bring us back to the vocabulary/translation issue; but I understand why you object to all the 'firmament' based comments.

Hindu: I'll take your word for it; consider it in. But, heat is just a portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, like visible light. Yes, the universe was very, very hot, which would mean something if there was anybody there to use such a subjective term.

My comment on the background radiation was made, because if they proved it was not a remnant of the big bang we should have found radiation that was. No big bang = No let there be light.

Yes, true, I was led to my opinion by the strengths and not the weaknesses. My only reason for continuing was in my faith that one culture rarely understands their differences from other cultures, especially in terms of language and idiom.

Part II Point 2: answered above.
Part II Point 3: fair enough.

Thanks for the point on Shakespeare, but I suggest that no one writes plays that are deliberately ambiguous, not even the ancient Greeks. If you don't write so that your audience can readily understand (because of the shared frames of references), you won't find your work popular or lasting. Our problem is the lack of the common frame of reference.

Commandments: NO, a thousand times, NO. The point is that they DON'T START IN ENGLISH, and that this is an English translation of a language with different GRAMMAR.

Again, thanks for the convo, and I certainly understand that you have questions that are largely unanswered. It's a part of the human condition, so I can't feel personally guilty about that. I've got many of my own to deal with.

Respond, if you care to. If you do, I'll try to give you the last word and sign off with just a nod and a handshake; just as long as nothing is attributed to me from which I've already distanced myself.

Your friend,
FordsTowel

PS: I just might check out that other thread. Thanks again.

Oops! I meant 'Creationism should be taught in school RE lessons'!

Minor error there!

Now back to reading your post...

Gif

Well hi and bye for now then. I'm not sure that 'other thread' will happen. Thanks for the conversation here, I hope you've got something out of it too.

Otherwise, I think we each understand where the other is coming from as much as we are likely to, so I won't repeat the points I have made several times before.

The only thought I'd like to leave you with is that the Jenny account also requires the pre-existence of something - God!

Gif

Lol!

That would be a big one, if the god were part of, or dependent upon, the creation of the universe!



Thank you, and may we meet again on some other fun subject!

Regards,

Hiya Gif, at least I'm hoping you came by to check out this newest post!

I'm not trying to renew or invigorate the debate. I just thought you might find this 8 minute youtube bit interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7jqlKuFf84&mode=related&search=

Entitled: Carl Sagan explains the fluidity of galaxies
Presented by Carl Sagan, from Cosmos eps 10 and posted February 16, 2007

He discusses galaxies as they exist today and how they react when they collide. Some of it, he admits, is conjecture.

Interestingly enough, there is also a Sagan video that explains that the Hindu religion is the only major religion that believes that the universe begins again each 100 Brahma years (The Shiva Cosmic Cycle), billions of years.

Entitled: Cosmos - The Beginning & The End Of The Universe
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASwlMPNXU-I&mode=related&search=

Enjoy!

Hi FT,

Sorry it's taken me a while to reply.

"That would be a big one, if the god were part of, or dependent upon, the creation of the universe"

- presumably by now you know what my response to that would be!

The Sagan links are cool. I've never seen Cosmos (and haven't had a chance to watch the links all the way through yet). At the risk of repeating this whole thread, Sagan appears to do a better job in 8 minutes using only a 1970s computer than your version of God managed in 6 days. I guess that's the crux of the debate for me - I can't imagine anyone watching that Sagan clip and then describing galaxies as 'water above the firmament'.

Have you ever read 'The Tao of Physics'? Fritjof Capra explains how Eastern Mysticism has uncanny parallels to quantum physics. I'd point to that as an example of how someone not coming from a Bible-based culture wouldn't look at the same things as you when judging the scientific authenticity of a relgion.

Gif

Hey, I'm just glad that you came back to check out the note, and that you seem to enjoy the clips!

No worries about restarting the debate. I think we about exhausted that one.

[Sagan appears to do a better job...] I couldn't agree more. So, to bad any god didn't wait until the '70s to try communicating. Of course, that's assuming that his isn't still doing it. If my positing is divinely inspired, you'd think I'd be let in on it, eh?

Tao is on my future reading list, though it has been there for a few years now, as is the Dancing Wu *something* Masters.

Oh, and yes, diversity in all its facets is fascinating. Einstein was right; the perception of the universe depends on the observer.

It used to bother me that time was supposed to pass differently at different speeds, when speeds are determined by the change in relative distance between two objects. When they are being separated at half light-speed, each appears to the other as traveling "away".

So why would time pass at different speeds? Why should time anywhere pass at different speeds? Why can't we truly say that the universe is 13,762,394,853 years, 420 days, 16 hours, 37 minutes and 12.6592 seconds old and expect it to be true throughout the universe and for every bit of matter in it?

Einstein has addressed part of it, and QM other parts. It is so counter-intuitive a concept. Boy was I glad when I finally figured it out.

Well, on to other things! Thanks for participating!

Still friends (or at least feeling friendly),