Does The Bible Examine Dark Matter?

[SwayzesGhost]

Early earth was covered in water

Correct, but the text is suggesting that a water covered earth existed prior to light and stars existing. The author stresses how darkness covered the water until God created light (stars), then separated the light and the darkness. This goes against science, since we know the earth was formed from a dead star some 10 million years (give or take a few years) after there had been plenty of light.

It suggests nothing of the sort.

Day 1.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Stars,earth, etc it was all created already. The light was already there.

1:3 Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.

1:4 And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.

1:5 And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

 This is an act of allowance. The light is not being created but allowed to be appear on the earths surface.  In earths early history it was covered in water. It was also covered in clouds which would have block out the sun light.

1:2 And the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.

A fomless and void earth would be dark, covered in water and clouds.

Even Job references the planet being covered in clouds in its early history.

"Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding... Or who enclosed the sea with doors, When, bursting forth, it went out from the womb; when I made a cloud its garment, and thick darkness its swaddling band" Job 38:4–9

[Poseidon]

It serves no purpose to resolve the first day, third day, fourth day, quibble.  The book of Genesis is so silly and full of absurdities that a thinking person could never assign it any credibility. Attempting to reach agreement about a fairy tale is not a productive pursuit.

[SwayzesGhost]

It serves no purpose to resolve the first day, third day, fourth day, quibble.  The book of Genesis is so silly and full of absurdities that a thinking person could never assign it any credibility. Attempting to reach agreement about a fairy tale is not a productive pursuit.

There's nothing absurd about it. It doesn't contradict any science.

[jaimehlers]

There's nothing absurd about it. It doesn't contradict any science.

Just the same as Anne McCaffrey's Pern books aren't absurd within their own (fictional) universe and don't contradict any science there.

But if you're trying to use the initial creation story in the Bible to describe what actually happened in reality, then it requires interpretation in order to make it fit what we know and have deduced.  The language is far too imprecise to work without that interpretation, even leaving aside the fact that the events described bear very little resemblance to the current model for how the Sol system formed.

[SwayzesGhost]

There's nothing absurd about it. It doesn't contradict any science.

Just the same as Anne McCaffrey's Pern books aren't absurd within their own (fictional) universe and don't contradict any science there.

But if you're trying to use the initial creation story in the Bible to describe what actually happened in reality, then it requires interpretation in order to make it fit what we know and have deduced.  The language is far too imprecise to work without that interpretation, even leaving aside the fact that the events described bear very little resemblance to the current model for how the Sol system formed.

 It was never meant to be a precise account of every step in the creation of the universe. But what it does do on a basic level is accurate.

[One Above All]

But what it does do on a basic level is accurate.

I was unaware that the moon emitted light. And here I thought it just reflected the light that came from the sun. I was also unaware that magic man created A&E before and after animals. First time must've been a prototype.

[Graybeard]

Day 1 and the earth has water. This isn't a problem for you, SwayzesGhost?

Early earth was covered in water

If it were covered in water and there were no sun, it would, in fact be covered in ice at about 4 degrees Kelvin (-269 C/ -452 F)

So, in the beginning, God created a planet covered in ice. However, peasants in the heat of Israel were quite unaware of sea ice.

Day-1

1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

1:2 And the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.

However, God says that it was not ice, it was water... impossible.

1:3 Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.

1:4 And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.

How do you separate “light from darkness”? How were they mixed so that they could be separated?

SwayzesGhost,

Here is the Cosmos God created:

(Actually, I created it and it took me a lot less than 6 days. Note the "Fountains of the Deep" (the blue stuff either side of Hell) and "Hell" itself.)

[SwayzesGhost]

But what it does do on a basic level is accurate.

I was unaware that the moon emitted light. And here I thought it just reflected the light that came from the sun. I was also unaware that magic man created A&E before and after animals. First time must've been a prototype.

 
No where in genesis does it contradict that. It never even specifies the source of the light for the moon. It certainly doesn't claim its emitting light.  Just you making assumptions.

Man was created after animals on the last day.

[SwayzesGhost]

If it were covered in water and there were no sun, it would, in fact be covered in ice at about 4 degrees Kelvin (-269 C/ -452 F)

Sun was  created on day 1

1:4 And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.
How do you separate “light from darkness”? How were they mixed so that they could be separated?

A day and Night cycle. One side of the earth is in darkness while the other isn't.  Seems like intentional ignorance on your part.

SwayzesGhost,


Here is the Cosmos God created:

(Actually, I created it and it took me a lot less than 6 days. Note the "Fountains of the Deep" (the blue stuff either side of Hell) and "Hell" itself.)

Okay. So you admit its the cosmos you created and not what God created.

[One Above All]

No where in genesis does it contradict that. It never even specifies the source of the light for the moon. It certainly doesn't claim its emitting light.  Just you making assumptions.

Dude created the "big light" to rule the day and a "little light" to rule the night. No assumption on my part; just your lack of knowledge.

[SwayzesGhost]

No where in genesis does it contradict that. It never even specifies the source of the light for the moon. It certainly doesn't claim its emitting light.  Just you making assumptions.

Dude created the "big light" to rule the day and a "little light" to rule the night. No assumption on my part; just your lack of knowledge.

Another assumption. So your definition of light is relegated to a source emitting it? Are you saying the moon has no light coming off it?

[One Above All]

Another assumption.

What assumption is that? You keep saying I'm assuming something, so go ahead and point it out. Unless you're just pulling facts out of your ass.

So your definition of light is relegated to a source emitting it? Are you saying the moon has no light coming off it?

The moon reflects light; it does not emit it. It can't. There's no light coming off of it in the same manner that there's no light coming off of a mirror. If both are kept in the dark, they do not produce light. Stars, on the other hand, are light sources. Even if kept separate from any photons, they still emit them. Unless, of course, you wish to claim that "light" means photons, and that the moon is made of photons, in which case you're even dumber than I thought.

[SwayzesGhost]

The moon reflects light; it does not emit it. It can't. There's no light coming off of it in the same manner that there's no light coming off of a mirror. If both are kept in the dark, they do not produce light. Stars, on the other hand, are light sources. Even if kept separate from any photons, they still emit them. Unless, of course, you wish to claim that "light" means photons, and that the moon is made of photons, in which case you're even dumber than I thought.

Thanks for the science lesson. I already know this.

The moon is still a light source cause its reflecting light. Thus your assumption that Bible claims the moon is emitting light is just that. An assumption.

[One Above All]

The moon is still a light source cause its reflecting light.

This tells me you were lying when you said you understood the science behind it. A light source emits light; it doesn't reflect it.[1]
My assumption that the Bible is wrong is not an assumption, by the way. It's a conclusion based on the evidence.

1.	By that I mean that a light source is a "source" because it emits; not because it reflects.

[Graybeard]

Ge:1:26: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Ge:1:27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
...
Ge:1:31: And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.  And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

But then we are told

Ge:2:1: Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
...
Ge:2:4: These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
Man and woman were thus created on the 6th day.

You will note that in "So God created man in his own image" the word man does not say, "a man" or "the man" and it clearly says that he created these men at the same time as he created "woman" (i.e. women in general.)

But in the next chapter:
Ge:2:7: And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Ge:2:8: And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Now this is either (i) a specific man (although there were others wandering around outside Eden) or (ii) it is referring back to the efforts of the 6th day.

(ii) does not seem likely as there was only one man - Adam and many men (and women) were created on the 6th day.

Thus the appearance of Adam must be the appearance of a specific man from among all those He earlier created.

God then watches Adam and gives him jobs:

Ge:2:18: And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
Ge:2:19: And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Ge:2:20: And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

The problem here is that on day 6, mankind had been created. Once in the Garden of Eden (produced sometime after the earth was finished) Adam had to name every animal.

OK SwazesGhost, start naming every animal... It's going to take you longer than a day isn't it?

So, when Eve was created:

Ge:2:21: And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
Ge:2:22: And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

It could not have been on the 6th day, as per Ge:1:27.

And before you start on the Young Earth garbage, we have clear proof of man upon the earth well before 4004BC.

[SwayzesGhost]

The moon is still a light source cause its reflecting light.

This tells me you were lying when you said you understood the science behind it. A light source emits light; it doesn't reflect it.[1]

1.	By that I mean that a light source is a "source" because it emits; not because it reflects.

Yeah. Poor choice of word with 'source.  I know how it works.

My assumption that the Bible is wrong is not an assumption, by the way. It's a conclusion based on the evidence.

No. You're assumption was more specific.  That the bible claims the moon is emitting light.  Though the passage does not indicate any such thing..   You're making the assumptions on your own preconceived notions.

[One Above All]

No. You're assumption was more specific.  That the bible claims the moon is emitting light.  Though the passage does not indicate any such thing..   You're making the assumptions on your own preconceived notions.

The Bible either claims that the moon is light or it claims that it's a light source.[1] I'd tell you to pick one, but both are wrong. The moon is not light, nor is it a light source.

1.	God made two great lights--the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.

[SwayzesGhost]

Genesis 2 is not a creation account. Its a expanded and more detailed account of the 6th day.

The book of Genesis contains several sections that begin with the phrase which we sometimes render, "These are the generations of..." The word "generations" is the Hebrew toledot and has the connotation of a family history or succession. Toledot are given for Adam's line (5:1-6), Noah (6:9-9:29), Noah's sons (10:1-11:9), Shem (11:10-26), Terah and Abram (11:27-25:11), and so on -- there are nearly a dozen recurrences of the toledot introduction and method, and one of these, interestingly enough, is Genesis 2:4-4:6.

What does this mean? It means that G2 is not actually a creation account as such, but a "family history" of the first men in creation [Mat.Gen126, 12ff]. It is therefore a point to begin our argument by noting that anyone who reads G2 as a rehash of the creation accounted in G1 is missing the boat from the start.

http://www.tektonics.org/jedp/creationtwo.html#mckin

Ge:2:20: And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

OK SwazesGhost, start naming every animal... It's going to take you longer than a day isn't it?

It doesn't say every animal. It says the cattle, fowl of the air an  beast of every field.  Also, its likely  Adam was only naming indigenous animals to the area.  On other hand Dr Morris did a study where one could come up with the naming of 3000 basic animals in 5 hours.

And before you start on the Young Earth garbage, we have clear proof of man upon the earth well before 4004BC.

What young earth garbage is that? Also why would I start on it? Another atheist being presumptuous. Incredible 

[SwayzesGhost]

No. You're assumption was more specific.  That the bible claims the moon is emitting light.  Though the passage does not indicate any such thing..   You're making the assumptions on your own preconceived notions.

The Bible either claims that the moon is light or it claims that it's a light source.[1] I'd tell you to pick one, but both are wrong. The moon is not light, nor is it a light source.

1.	God made two great lights--the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.

Light is light. It doesn't matter if its being reflected or not.

[One Above All]

Light is light. It doesn't matter if its being reflected or not.

I'm sorry, my responses are limited. You must not present bullshit.

[SwayzesGhost]

Light is light. It doesn't matter if its being reflected or not.

I'm sorry, my responses are limited. You must not present bullshit.

Then stop making bullshit assumptions.

Also. I guess everyone must be stupid. Since people use the term moonlight to describe the light from the moon. Poor fools don't even realize its not really a light source!

[One Above All]

Then stop making bullshit assumptions.

I've yet to make an assumption; only conclusions.

Also. I guess everyone must be stupid.
<snip>

Nope. Just you.

[Graybeard]

Ge:2:20: And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

OK SwazesGhost, start naming every animal... It's going to take you longer than a day isn't it?

It doesn't say every animal. It says the cattle, fowl of the air an  beast of every field.  Also, its likely  Adam was only naming indigenous animals to the area.  On other hand Dr Morris did a study where one could come up with the naming of 3000 basic animals in 5 hours.

No - read the Bible: Ge:2:20: And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, (i.e. all birds, including bats) and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

What Bible are you using?

It matters little what the idiot Morris did (I say idiot advisedly and I doubt he is a "Doctor" if this is the level of his experiments) The point with Adam is that he had to get each animal to name it. There would be little point sitting under a tree and reciting names, would there?

And before you start on the Young Earth garbage, we have clear proof of man upon the earth well before 4004BC.

What young earth garbage is that? Also why would I start on it? Another atheist being presumptuous. Incredible 

[/quote]
Just a tactic to stop idiocy. Now we have established that you accept the Age of the Earth^Wiki is approx 4.5 Billion years, I am happy. I didn't want any garbage about "Ooo! Radiometric dating is inaccurate you know..." like we get from so many other theists who come here with zero knowledge and understanding.

[SwayzesGhost]

Then stop making bullshit assumptions.

I've yet to make an assumption; only conclusions.

Also. I guess everyone must be stupid.
<snip>

Nope. Just you.

You cant support your position.  I get it

http://classic.net.bible.org/strong.php?id=0215

1) to be or become light, shine
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to become light (day)
1a2) to shine (of the sun)
1a3) to become bright
1b) (Niphal)
1b1) to be illuminated
1b2) to become lighted up
1c) (Hiphil)
1c1) to give light, shine (of sun, moon, and stars)
1c2) to illumine, light up, cause to shine, shine
1c3) to kindle, light (candle, wood)
1c4) lighten (of the eyes, his law, etc)
1c5) to make shine (of the face)



Concession noted. The word 'light" is not relegated to a source emitting it. Bible does not say that the moon emits light.

[Seppuku]

Swayze,

A source is its point of origin. Where it comes from. Saying the moon is a source of light is like say my mouse is a source of light or my chair or bed. They all reflect light because if they didn't, then they would just appear black. The source of light could be from the sun, it could even be the sun via the moon, but it could also be my bedroom light. Light doesn't come from the moon, but light likes to stop off there on its trip around the universe.

Also. I guess everyone must be stupid. Since people use the term moonlight to describe the light from the moon. Poor fools don't even realize its not really a light source!

It's just a word, it doesn't necessarily mean anything about the person who uses it (just as an atheist might say "for God's sake" or a person who doesn't believe in Greek mythology will describe somebody as 'narcassistic'). It originates from 14th Century, 'light of the moon'.

The stars of heaven and their constellations will not show their light.The rising sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light. Isaiah 13:10


When I snuff you out, I will cover the heavens and darken their stars; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon will not give its light. Ezekiel 32:7



Both passages hint that the sun is reflecting light onto the moon.

Hint, possibly, but explicitly say? No. I mean is the moon not giving light because the sun is darkened? What about the heavens and constellations? They've gone out too, is it because of the sun or is it because of them the sun and moon go out? Unfortunately the passages are not clear and it's very easy to apply your own meaning to them. I'd hope for something that's the inerrant word of God to be able to speak in more explicit terms, like, "the moon will no longer reflect its light". The passage confirms no such information.

Also, coverring the sun with a cloud will NOT stop the moon reflecting light. Clouds aren't in space, they're within our atmosphere, not that a space cloud would stop the sun emitting light. The clouds are currently coverring the sun here in merry ol' England (and it seems they always do  ) but we're not living in total darkness.


I get the feeling you're just twisting the bible to support your claims. It makes perfect sense for somebody during the times the bible was written to assume the moon emitted light, they're not stupid, it's just something that's very difficult for them to check. However, to accept this one must accept that the bible isn't the inerrant word of God and unfortunately, this is what people refuse to do when it's found some part of the bible is innaccurate.

[pianodwarf]

Also. I guess everyone must be stupid. Since people use the term moonlight to describe the light from the moon. Poor fools don't even realize its not really a light source!

That's simply due to convention, nothing more.  We also talk about the sun rising and setting, even though we know that's not actually what it does; that, too, is simply due to convention.  For that matter -- in English, at least -- we still talk about things like "dialing a phone number" even though phone calls are no longer placed by dialing.

[SwayzesGhost]

Ge:2:20: And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

OK SwazesGhost, start naming every animal... It's going to take you longer than a day isn't it?

It doesn't say every animal. It says the cattle, fowl of the air an  beast of every field.  Also, its likely  Adam was only naming indigenous animals to the area.  On other hand Dr Morris did a study where one could come up with the naming of 3000 basic animals in 5 hours.

No - read the Bible: Ge:2:20: And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, (i.e. all birds, including bats) and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

What Bible are you using?

It matters little what the idiot Morris did (I say idiot advisedly and I doubt he is a "Doctor" if this is the level of his experiments) The point with Adam is that he had to get each animal to name it. There would be little point sitting under a tree and reciting names, would there?

And before you start on the Young Earth garbage, we have clear proof of man upon the earth well before 4004BC.

What young earth garbage is that? Also why would I start on it? Another atheist being presumptuous. Incredible 

Just a tactic to stop idiocy. Now we have established that you accept the Age of the Earth^Wiki is approx 4.5 Billion years, I am happy. I didn't want any garbage about "Ooo! Radiometric dating is inaccurate you know..." like we get from so many other theists who come here with zero knowledge and understanding.
[/quote]


He didn't have to name every animal.  Certainly did not have to name bugs,insects, amphibious, or sea creatures.  Also its likely he wouldn't have to name every species.  A bat is a bat regardless if its a fruit bat.  Also, I believe he only had to name all the indigenous animals that were relevant to his geographic location

[SwayzesGhost]

Also. I guess everyone must be stupid. Since people use the term moonlight to describe the light from the moon. Poor fools don't even realize its not really a light source!

That's simply due to convention, nothing more.  We also talk about the sun rising and setting, even though we know that's not actually what it does; that, too, is simply due to convention.  For that matter -- in English, at least -- we still talk about things like "dialing a phone number" even though phone calls are no longer placed by dialing.

So why making the exception for the Bible?

[SwayzesGhost]

A source is its point of origin. Where it comes from. Saying the moon is a source of light is like say my mouse is a source of light or my chair or bed. They all reflect light because if they didn't, then they would just appear black. The source of light could be from the sun, it could even be the sun via the moon, but it could also be my bedroom light. Light doesn't come from the moon, but light likes to stop off there on its trip around the universe.

This I already know. Which I think I already addressed. Saying "source" was a poor choice of words.  But the bible gives no indication that the moon is emitting the light. As I  already provide the herew definition of light can imply reflected light

1) to be or become light, shine
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to become light (day)
1a2) to shine (of the sun)
1a3) to become bright
1b) (Niphal)
1b1) to be illuminated
1b2) to become lighted up
1c) (Hiphil)
1c1) to give light, shine (of sun, moon, and stars)
1c2) to illumine, light up, cause to shine, shine
1c3) to kindle, light (candle, wood)
1c4) lighten (of the eyes, his law, etc)
1c5) to make shine (of the face)

It's just a word, it doesn't necessarily mean anything about the person who uses it (just as an atheist might say "for God's sake" or a person who doesn't believe in Greek mythology will describe somebody as 'narcassistic'). It originates from 14th Century, 'light of the moon'.

Which was my point. So why should we make the Bible the exception. The Hebrews used a lot of imagery and poetry.