Thursday Nov 10, 2005

0
Eh, never mind.
VIEW 5 of 5 COMMENTS
burningkrome:

Sorry for the late reply...

No worries :-D

The standard fideist line on the two Genesis accounts is that the second (longer) is a clarification of the first (shorter). Fair enough, says I, but Jehovah still flunks basic astronomy...

I dont know. Based on the timeline from Steven Hawkings A breif History of Time regarding the theoretical timeline after the big bang and during the formation of the Universal bodies...the Genesis account of the Universe may be pretty close, in a rough scale.

I.E. Quarks, and photons (light) would have been the first elements created within the first 60 seconds after the Big Bang, then hydrogen, then [big time gap], then the core of planets would have formed from the heavier, less volatile matter in the universe, and then stars would have congealed from the lighter, more volatile gasses into solar bodies.

As for the Garden of Eden...that would obviously have to have been analogous :-)

It just amazes me that people kill each other over things like this.

Me too. The Bible cannot be taken at face value if for no other reason than the translational arguments are too great. :-)

brainfromarous:
Well, the astronomy problem I was referring to is the Genesis writer's clear belief that sunlight and moonlight (the greater and lesser lights) are two distrinct things.

And I still want to know what happened to the Nephilim...

More Blogs