Replies

Oh good, I am pleased you were able to answer tonight.

In scanning your reply, you post:

That still does not reconcile the obvious errors in the order given in Genesis. For example:

Gen 1:12 - And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

Gen 1:14 - And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years

I assume you are pointing out that plant life could not exist in the absence of the light provided by celestial bodies?

This is an apparent contradiction in the text to be sure. A closer inspection shows that our planet and the sun where formed the first day. (3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.)

You quoted v12 and v14 which were presented as occurring on the 3rd and 4th days respectively. In general sequence terms this preserves the logic flow, that is to say, light was in place before life appeared.

For the moment we'll let the more esoteric language arguments slide, because only creationists would care, but there is also an explanation involving differences in Hebrew tenses and our English translations of such that addresses timing of the conclusion of events listed in Genesis. Additionally, there is also a theological argument involving sequencing to show the superiority of Yahweh over the local gods that would have made sense to the target audience, but that seems a bit weak to build an argument around.

The next interesting point you make is:

However, the order does not fit the observed data. Foe example, first generation stars would not have planets, yet they certainly would be emitting electromagnetic energy.

Let me make sure I understand your position. Are you suggesting that the description of a planetary body being created at the same time as the parent star is the issue?

An aside...I was pleased to see someone who has even heard of the Magellan spacecraft. I spent two years of my life on that one, and relatively few people are even aware of it or its contributions to science.

[RadioAstronomer: That still does not reconcile the obvious errors in the order given in Genesis. For example: Gen 1:12 - And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good. Gen 1:14 - And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years]

I assume you are pointing out that plant life could not exist in the absence of the light provided by celestial bodies?

I believe his point is that in Genesis, the Sun/Moon/stars are created on a "day" following the creation of grasses and fruit trees. In fact, though, the Sun/Moon/stars are at least several billion years old, whereas grasses and fruit trees did not exist prior to about 150 million years ago (fruit trees) and 40 million years ago (grasses). Major contradiction in chronologies.

So... It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is?

That's a more apt comparison than it may sound at first. Clinton was similarly splitting hairs on verb tenses:

Q: That statement is a completely false statement. Whether or not Mr. Bennett knew of your relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, the statement that there [is] "no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form, with President Clinton," was an utterly false statement. Is that correct?
Clinton: It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is. If the –if he – if "is" means is and never has been, that is not--- that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement.

In any case, the "verb tenses" argument doesn't really help, because a) if invoked to "repair" the chronologies then the text becomes incredibly tortured, and b) the tenses in the key passages under discussion don't lend themselves to the sort of ambiguity that would allow for the necessary chronological "rearrangement".

In this web page, a Hebrew scholar discusses the matter of Hebrew tenses and idiom, and produces a "strict" translation of Genesis 1 which retains the tenses of the original language. His rendering of the relevant passages is:

¹¹ And Elohim ^zsaith, The earth ^zbrings forth grass, herb ^aseeding seed, and tree of fruit ^aproducing fruit after its kind, whose seed is in it, on The earth; and so ^zit is. ¹² And The earth ^zbrings forth grass, herb ^aseeding seed after its kind, and tree ^aproducing fruit, whose seed is in it, after its kind; and Elohim ^zsees that it is good. ¹³ And evening ^zis and morning ^zis, a third day.
¹⁴ And Elohim ^zsaith, ^zthere shall be lights in y^e firmament of The heavens, to ^bdivide between The day and The night; and ^pthey have been (or were) for signs and for seasons, and for days and years: ¹⁵ and ^pthey have been (or were) for lights in y^e firmament of The heavens to give light on The earth, and so ^zit shall be.
¹⁶ And Elohim ^zmakes _^Those two The lights The great ones; _^That light that great one for y^e rule of The day, and _^That light, That lesser (lit. little one) for y^e rule of The night; _^The stars also. ¹⁷ And Elohim ^zsets _^them in y^e firmament of The heavens to ^bgive light on The earth, and ¹⁸ ^bto rule over The day and over The night, and to ^bdivide between The light and The darkness, and Elohim ^zsees that it is good. ¹⁹ And evening ^zis and morning ^zis, a fourth day.

You'll note that all the critical passages are rendered in the present tense -- not in the past, where the ambiguity between the past tense and the pluperfect can come into play.

[RadioAstronomer: However, the order does not fit the observed data. Foe example, first generation stars would not have planets, yet they certainly would be emitting electromagnetic energy.]

Let me make sure I understand your position. Are you suggesting that the description of a planetary body being created at the same time as the parent star is the issue?

No, I believe his point is that "stars shining in the heaven" would have predated planets of any sort (including Earth) by many billions of years, and yet in Genesis the Earth is created before the stars.