So you thank God for sending natural disasters?
No, the creation story is not a myth, but a reality. Our God speaks sometimes in one way, sometimes in another. When something is a reality, many civilizations that have never met can be aware of it, because consciousness comes from God and our origin story is written in it. So, to say that the biblical scheme of creation is a myth is part of the consideration of intellectuals but it is not real. If you consider this story to be a myth, then everything in the Old Testament is a myth.
I am not ignoring the creation story in Genesis 2. I have said that these are two complementary stories. In Genesis 1, everything was attributed to the divine power and the author insisted on respecting the chronology. But, this is not the case in Genesis where the author focused only on the creation, revealing us how they were made without taking into account the chronology. God always works step by step, starting with preparing the environment. Man and animals should feed themselves to live. Do you think that the author of Genesis 2 was not aware of this, he who was the first to reveal that everything started from the dust of the earth downstream that astrophysicists call stardust upstream? This literal analysis of Genesis 2 being different from Genesis 1 is wrong and is the work of those who want to pass off the biblical scheme of creation as a myth.
We will have to disagree, as I am convinced that you are denying what The second creation story actually says.
I donât think we have a basis for discussion.
1 Like
This story that people think they understand when they read it actually hides great truth related to cosmology. It is written âGod said let there be light and there was lightâ. However, even if it is so, the word of God is fulfilled on the basis of physical foundation. So, for this light to appear, it needed a foundation that you all ignore. Furthermore, light never separates from darkness. The light makes the darkness disappear. This is to say that it was not this light of which you think. In 1500 BC, there were not enough words in physics to describe certain things. The notion of millions of years and epochs in the history of the universe did not exist. They were only introduced in the 20th century. Even carbon-14 to date the fossil was only discovered in 1949. But people think that the biblical scheme of creation was written by someone who lived in our time and want to take it literally. Not everything that comes to us from papyrus is to be taken literally, but it is necessary to try to enter into the depth of the author to understand his message. For the biblical scheme of creation, nobody has done it. A normal day has a beginning and an end. In these verses from the first day, we are told that the spirit of God was moving on the waters. When did this spirit begin to move on the waters and when were these waters created? This story hides many mysteries that I must unveil so that the world will indeed know that it is not a myth and that it is part of cosmology and not just theology.
Here we are talking about faith and science. It will be good if we limit ourselves to the topic of the day, namely âthe meaning of the days in the biblical scheme of creationâ.
I am not ignoring the creation story in Genesis 2. I have said that these are two complementary stories. In Genesis 1, everything was attributed to the divine power and the author insisted on respecting the chronology. But, this is not the case in Genesis where the author focused only on the creation, revealing us how they were made without taking into account the chronology. God always works step by step, starting with preparing the environment. Man and animals should feed themselves to live. Do you think that the author of Genesis 2 was not aware of this, he who was the first to reveal that everything started from the dust of the earth downstream that astrophysicists call stardust upstream? This literal analysis of Genesis 2 being different from Genesis 1 is wrong and is the work of those who want to pass off the biblical scheme of creation as a myth.
Not specifically but I can only make sense of them within theism as a necessary part of the natural world. Canât get the minerals without tectonic plates but that means earthquakes and tsunamis. The notion of heaven complicates things and I may be way off but itâs all I got for natural evil. If you know something better, Iâm all ears.
In the mathematics course, sometimes to understand the fifth chapter, one must first understand the first chapter. That is why I wanted to clarify the notion of the biblical day before going into the depth of the biblical scheme of creation according to the vision of a cosmologist and not of a theologian.
Evening, morning, 7 day work week with rest at the end. Understanding the days as anything else is dead in the water. Fortunately, Genesis lends itself quite well to a figurative Interpretations.
I mean, you did claim Genesis 1 is chronological but Genesis 2 is not. I mean, how on earth did you come to that conclusion? What methodology led you there?
Vinnie
1 Like
Darkness is simply the absence of visible light just like cold is the absence of heat. The first three days all feature separation.
That is not why some people want to take it literally.
You are certainly not the first to attempt this.
Not according to the disinterested consensus laws of reality. And your conclusion does not follow according to them of course. Your laws of reality differ, and Iâm sure by one of your laws it does. But you will not be able to transfer that to me.
You said: "This is the late recycling of the TARTE religion, in which the names of the optically visible bodies of the solar system were used, historically by the Sumerians, keeping the arbitrary 7-day cycle, but erasing the polytheistic astrological names. It is us today, by doing research, that we discover that certain stories are repeated in several civilizations. But, the people of the time, did not have sometimes contact with these civilizations to say that such recopied the stories of the civilizations of others by replacing the names of their gods. Nothing was faked in the Old Testament. The Old Testament accounts are original, although the translators can commit abuses.
PIE=Proto-Indo European. Not apple. Who said anything about fake? The texts are perfectly genuine. Fake was a meaningless concept until medieval fraud.
I am not the first to have attempted this experiment, but I am the first to have actually discovered that this story is true. But the biblical cosmological model, which is this scheme of creation, deserved the reasoning of a cosmologist to say whether it is a true scheme or whether it is a myth. The cosmologist has to check whether the joints fit together and see whether the sequence of what is written is the consequence of what has gone before. This is an analysis that theologians and philosophers cannot make, but one that is in the business of cosmology, which is the study of the origin and evolution of the universe. And I am the first to have proceeded on these lines and to have discovered that the biblical scheme of creation is well founded.
You are right to say that the texts are authentic. But, where I do not agree, is the fact of saying that it is about ancient oral traditions. what prevents an ancient oral tradition from being true?
The only methodology is when we know how the Universe evolved as taught today in Astrophysics and whose authors of 1500 BC did not have this scheme. But they wrote down what they knew in their own terms. It is up to us to restore them with the terms of our time without making concordism. A biologist went to the equatorial forest to talk to the midwife who had not studied medicine. The latter said to him âbefore I start delivering the baby, I wait for the woman to urinateâ. The biologist understood immediately that she was talking about the rupture of the water bag and the exit of the amniotic fluid. In rendering this account in his book, the biologist used the right name. Was he concordant? In the biblical scheme of creation, as soon as you try to say the right name in relation to what was said 1500 years ago, you always cry concordism. What is for example the name that an author of 1500 BC could use instead of the Universe if not the Earth? But it is from the whole sentence that we will know that he is not talking about our planet Earth. This is my methodology, which made me really scientifically reconstruct this scheme and I called it âthe Universal Cosmological Modelâ.
Well I still find meaning tied into authorial intent. I understand we have techniques that go beyond this but if I am trying to figure out what a text said and meant, when it was written, adding modern science to it is the definition of eisegesis. It seems we approach interpretation from different directions.
Yes, the meaning is related to the authorâs intention, but sometimes the author does not have the right word to use in a science and uses the words common in the general literature. In these days, each science has developed specific words. Even when you talk about exegesis, it may be that the exegete does not have the words for the text he wants to translate. The biblical scheme of creation is part of the cosmology that has been relegated to cosmogony, simply because no one has understood the authorâs intention and it is taken literally. Soon, I want to post my third publication because the first one was deleted by the moderators who thought that I came to transmit a doctrine called âthe Universal Cosmological Modelâ. No, I am only here to talk about the Universe, its creation and its evolution in relation or according to the biblical scheme of creation. This, in order to recreate confidence and faith in those who have lost it for this scheme. In my third publication, I have a big surprise in store for you on the first verse of the first chapter of Genesis which no one has ever understood before. When I say no one, I mean the eight billion inhabitants of the Earth, without exception. This is when you will discover my true methodology and you will find out that I am not doing interpretation, exegesis or concordism. This third publication will be entitled âWhat does it mean that in the beginning God created the heaven and the earthâ (Gen 1:1). These are subjects that are not even addressed in the Church because it requires understanding cosmology and not only theology. But here in this forum, talking about the unity between science and faith, netizens will be privileged to understand that.
Science . . .