More scientific probability and the Genesis account

Originally posted by FMF
It's not exactly a 'forum secret'. You often disappear for a few days when you get caught out on a thread. You are at liberty to deny it, of course. 😵

whatever you say FMF, it must be true.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Whatever you say PK, as FMF has intimated, you, him and many others are at liberty to
draw their own conclusions and will do, regardless. I could argue, but what's the
point? I keep asking myself, what is it I hope to achieve by remonstrating with others,
is it not better simply to relax and do something I enjoy, when I have the time?

In case you have forgotten, it was you who posted the article Rob. You posted an article in a public forum and you are now befuddled as to why people might want ask you questions pertaining to the article?!

That just seems a little strange to me. If you don't wish to remonstrate with people, why are you presenting articles to the forum?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
whatever you say FMF, it must be true.

I think in a case like this - something that has become a discernible pattern - others will judge for themselves rather than rely merely on the fact that I 'said it'.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Hebrew flourished as a spoken language in the kingdoms of Israel and Judah during the 10th to 7th centuries BCE. Scholars debate the degree to which Hebrew was a spoken vernacular in ancient times following the Babylonian exile, when the predominant language in the region was Old Aramaic.

Hebrew was nearly extinct as a spoken language by Late Antiquity, ...[text shortened]... n, but I believe it was the language spoken by Adam and Eve.

HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!

so you're saying that a language that's an offshoot (aka evolution) of canaanite was the spoken language of adam?

hehe. this reflects further on your ignorance of the evolution of languages.

everybody knows adam spoke sumerian.

Originally posted by twhitehead
To add to Barts comments, you must also take into account that you picked 10 things that you think the writer got right and ignored the 101 things he got wrong.
If we instead do the calculation for the probability of a writer randomly getting 10 out of 111 things in the right order, then the result changes considerably.

To add to Barts comments, you must also take into account that you picked 10 things that you think the writer got right and ignored the 101 things he got wrong.

And the 110 things the writer got wrong are what, 110 things that he didn't mention ?

That's hardly fair. I think the point is that the order of the things mentioned is right. But if you know of 110 other errors in the same chapter, list them.

Originally posted by jaywill

To add to Barts comments, you must also take into account that you picked 10 things that you think the writer got right and ignored the 101 things he got wrong.

And the 110 things the writer got wrong are what, 110 things that he didn't mention ?

That's hardly fair. I think the point is that the order of the things mentioned is right. But if you know of 110 other errors in the same chapter, list them.

The sun came before the earth, therefore the order is wrong.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
The sun came before the earth, therefore the order is wrong.

The sun came before the earth, therefore the order is wrong.

What ? Is it known that the earth was formed before the SUN ?
I think you are wrong here.

How about life was in the sea before it was on the land ?

Originally posted by jaywill

The sun came before the earth, therefore the order is wrong.

What ? Is it known that the earth was formed before the SUN ?
I think you are wrong here.

How about life was in the sea before it was on the land ?

No the earth and the sun formed from the same collapsing cloud of dust and gas.

The objects that would coalesce together to form the earth had not finished doing
so by the time the sun had formed and ignited.

So the sun formed before the earth.

The bible however has it the other way around.


Not that it matters.


The biblical account gets some things vaguely right and others hopelessly wrong.

However even if it got the sequence of events exactly right that still doesn't mean
that it's divinely inspired and still doesn't make it even remotely useful as a knowledge
source about the world we live on and universe we live in.

Originally posted by googlefudge
No the earth and the sun formed from the same collapsing cloud of dust and gas.

The objects that would coalesce together to form the earth had not finished doing
so by the time the sun had formed and ignited.

So the sun formed before the earth.

The bible however has it the other way around.


Not that it matters.


The biblical account g n remotely useful as a knowledge
source about the world we live on and universe we live in.

No the earth and the sun formed from the same collapsing cloud of dust and gas.

The objects that would coalesce together to form the earth had not finished doing so by the time the sun had formed and ignited. [/quote]

From the standpoint of the seer of the vision, God said "Let there be light" and there was light. This may be from the standpoint of the prophetic vision from on the surface of the dark waterfilled earth.

I mean "Let there be light" could be related to the physical spot upon which the seer sees the vision. This does not insist that the sun was not formed. It only means the light of the sun, possibly had to be commanded by God to pierce through the darkened shroud of the earth.

So the sun formed before the earth.

"Let there be light" not insist that the sun was not formed.

Neither does the forth day pronouncement -

"And let there be light-bearers in the expanse of the heaven to give light on the earth; and it was so. And God made two great light-bearers, the greater light-bearer to rule the day and the lesser light-bearer to rule the night, and the stars." (v. 15,16)

The Hebrew word translated in the RcV as light-bearers (v.15,16) is not the same Hebrew word translated light (v.3)

The latter word means a receptacle - ie. light from a definite visible container.
The former in "Let there be light" does not insist that one can locate the source of the light. It is like sheet lightning and spread out evenly blanketing the sky. This could be compared to light on a very foggy day.

The word for made in verse 16 - "And God made two great light-bearers ..." does not insist that God CREATED the sun on Day 4.

Made from [ASAH] is to work with existing material. So the sun could have existed in some form and was fashioned or even "appointed" on the 4th day. Both understandings could be permissible.

No slam dunk error in the Bible for you there.

The bible however has it the other way around.

Not necessarily at all. If you had the word for CREATE refering to the light-holder of the sun being on the 4th day, then you might have a case.

As it stands, what the seer may have noticed was how the diffuse light in the sky coalesced into a definite light-holder or light-bearer of the sun. And that he rightfully interpreted as God MAKING (not creating) the sun at that time.

Not that it matters.

Whew! That was close for you. You're dead wrong. So good for you that it doesn't matter.

The biblical account gets some things vaguely right and others hopelessly wrong.

Your one example was by no means "hopelessly wrong."

However even if it got the sequence of events exactly right that still doesn't mean that it's divinely inspired and still doesn't make it even remotely useful as a knowledge source about the world we live on and universe we live in.

Nothing to you will mean the Bible is divinely inspired.
The accumulated evidence to many of us, is started in Genesis to convince us that this is a communication from our Creator.

It is useful about our place in the universe. Simply to know that we are created in the image of God is worth very much.

To know that we are not an accident is also worth very much to most of the world. And to know that God prepared the world for man's living is useful.

And though science may not agree on WHO did the preparing, it is largely verifying that the universe IS fine tuned for intelligent life like man to exist.

And I will go further than that. Not only is science confirming that the universe is fine tuned for our living. It is also quite a coincidence that we are in the position we are in the galaxy to SEE the vastness of the universe. A little different position in the location of the Milky Way galaxy and we would not be able to observe the universe to such a distance.
Either the light of too many stars would obscure our view or the galactic dust would do so.

So God not only fine tuned the universe that man could exist. He also located us in the place where we could observe our place in the cosmos with the greatest possible clarity.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
The sun came before the earth, therefore the order is wrong.

The order is wrong only to false science. God knows the true order.
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!

Originally posted by googlefudge
No the earth and the sun formed from the same collapsing cloud of dust and gas.

The objects that would coalesce together to form the earth had not finished doing
so by the time the sun had formed and ignited.

So the sun formed before the earth.

The bible however has it the other way around.


Not that it matters.


The biblical account g ...[text shortened]... n remotely useful as a knowledge
source about the world we live on and universe we live in.

The Holy Bible is right and lying science is wrong.
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!

Originally posted by jaywill

No the earth and the sun formed from the same collapsing cloud of dust and gas.

The objects that would coalesce together to form the earth had not finished doing so by the time the sun had formed and ignited. [/quote]

From the standpoint of the seer of the vision, God said [b]"Let there be light" and there was light. This m ...[text shortened]... could observe our place in the cosmos with the greatest possible clarity.[/b]

Why do you keep trying to make the Holy BIble fit with false science?

Why do you keep trying to make the Holy BIble fit with false science?

I am examining closely what is written. It is not what is easily and traditionally assumed that I am interested in. But what did it actually say is the first thing to consider.

For this some delving into the original language with tools to do so, is important to me.

Originally posted by jaywill

Why do you keep trying to make the Holy BIble fit with false science?

I am examining closely what is [b]written. It is not what is easily and traditionally assumed that I am interested in. But what did it actually say is the first thing to consider.

For this some delving into the original language with tools to do so, is important to me.[/b]

That is okay as long as you don't start with the assumption that science is always right.

Originally posted by RJHinds
That is okay as long as you don't start with the assumption that science is always right.

As opposed to assuming that an ancient book of fairy tales is always right.

As Aaron Rah says "Science doesn't know everything, Religion doesn't know anything"