(August 6, 2009 at 6:40 pm)chatpilot Wrote: Jon I have a question for you:Where do you get this certainty of so called absolute truth regarding the scriptures and the god it describes?

I would say the word "absolute" is unnecessary. But the truth? I have from many things, not just from 1 thing which I can summarise in one post. Explaining my relative certainty would become a biographical matter due to its mere extent in all truth.

(August 6, 2009 at 6:40 pm)chatpilot Wrote: You cant reason about metaphysical things because to the subjective mind the metaphysical or supernatural world does not exist and can't be proven to exist.The fact that this god is outside of the realm of the natural world and exist on a transcendental plain put him or it outside the realm of scientific scrutiny.

It's outside the limits of the scientific method, at least based on my knowledge of it's areas of inquiry - yes. Outside of the scrutiny of rational demonstration and understanding? No.

(August 6, 2009 at 6:40 pm)chatpilot Wrote: The bible for instance has been proven scientifically unsound on so many known scientific principles that in my mind that alone disproves its divine origin and authenticity.

How has the bible "been proven scientifically unsound" and what does it even mean?

---

(August 6, 2009 at 5:09 pm)amw79 Wrote: This is all well and good, but we all know that philosophical and metaphysical reasoning can be a wasteful, semantic excerise. We've all heard the one about the philosophy student who goes in the pub after a lecture, and says to a bloke "Actually metaphysically speaking, that table isn't there", and the other bloke puts his head through it.....

Apparently he has been reading too much into arealist sceptical theories, such as those in Copenhagist interpretations of quantum mechanics, of which Purple Rabbit was a vehement proponent.

(August 6, 2009 at 5:09 pm)amw79 Wrote: Even foregoing how you get to your "divine simplicity", the consequences of your conclusion are a creative, loving, intervening god, which is an extraordinary claim - which therefore requires extraordinary evidence

An intervening God is inevitable from my argument, as any upholding of the existence of the universe is a sort of intervention, even if it is not direct, the "mechanism" is certainly there. Maximum perfection and goodness is also implicit in my argument as I define goodness and perfection in the Aristotelian sense of actuality, which happens to be what God is purely of. A loving God is also implicit, in the definition of love as pure unwarranted charity and giving to undeserving subjects, even of their very existence (actuality).

How has the bible "been proven scientifically unsound" and what does it even mean?

Are you serious?

What about "wrong"? Beginning (ahem) with Genesis: EG That every species on earth could fit in to a craft the size of the arc as described the bible.

Before you go dismissing Genesis as allegorical please remember that Jesus himself stated The Torah is literally true.

In terms of 'scientific accuracy" (ie verifiable by evidence) I can't actually think of any specific biblical "scientific claims" (cosmology and geography for example) which are actually correct. The bible is also notoriously inaccurate as history.

EG:

Not only do Christians have no idea of the actual dates of Jesus' birth and death,there is in fact no evidence at all,of his existence.

Biblical claims long accepted as factual,such as The Exodus, are increasingly coming to be seen as myth.The actual age of the faith we call Judaism is being reduced to around 800 BCE.

To say the bible is is unscientific is a redundant phrase. The Torah is the Mythology of a bronze tribe of goat herders and their nasty little mountain god "El". It was not written down until the first century BCE.The Gospels are the mythology of a poor little rabbi and putative founder of a minor Jewish sect who may or may not have existed.

(August 6, 2009 at 10:17 pm)padraic Wrote: How has the bible "been proven scientifically unsound" and what does it even mean?

Are you serious?

Yes, I was serious.

(August 6, 2009 at 10:17 pm)padraic Wrote: Beginning (ahem) with Genesis: EG That every species on earth could fit in to a carft the size of the arc as described the bible.

Well, it is not a scientific claim, it is a story. If you hadn't noticed, (many parts of the) Old Testament really consists of stories, and uses them to teach many truths which you can't really understand it's theological framework without. It was no coincidence that the mode of Jesus teaching was parables: this was the way God had chosen to reveal the truth. And it was the right way.

I would say without reluctance that the story is true. And not in any one narrow sense. Whether it is true in the sense of "accurate in depicting a historical event representative of the whole world", I don't know. You'd have to ask someone more opinionated on the subject than me, because I don't even speculate to this length. I simply accept the story and try to understand it's significance with what it's trying to tell us.

For the stories recorded in scripture were not reveled to us just to make a bunch of claims about the world for scientific validation. If that was the case, God could have given us a book full of random truths not pertaining to anyone in any humane sense. But that's not what we got, and every revelation we have there is a reason for, which is obviously a reason not of teaching science or philosophy (there was plenty of that in the ancient world, wholly apart from establishing a connection to God or the gods) but of communicating Gods perspective on things to humans, by means of accommodation.

(August 6, 2009 at 10:17 pm)padraic Wrote: Before you go dismissing Genesis as allegorical please remember that Jesus himself stated The Torah is literally true.

Where did he say that it is "literally true"?

Not that I disagree with the statement. I just don't recall it off the top of my head.

He certainly never said that is has to interpreted according to the protestant/evangelical "literalist" approach, if that's what you mean.

(August 6, 2009 at 10:17 pm)padraic Wrote: In terms of 'scientific accuracy" (ie verifiable by evidence) I can't actyually think of any "scientific claims (cosmology and geography for example) which are actually correct.

Well, I don't know. I don't think it's making scientific claims. I consider it quite perverse to take it in some scientific sense it wasn't (realistically speaking) intended for. What do you think is the point of the stories in the Old Testament? Science? Clearly that isn't so. Clearly the point is the wisdom and truth communicated in the story.

(August 6, 2009 at 10:17 pm)padraic Wrote: The bible is also notoriously inaccurate as history.

Well, you are welcome to hold that opinion. I can respect that you hold the opinion, but from reading viewpoints from both extremes when it comes to how much we know about, for instance, the New Testaments historical reliability, I think you are very clearly exaggerating.

(August 6, 2009 at 10:17 pm)padraic Wrote: EG:

Not only do Christians have no idea of the actual dates of Jesus' birth and death,there is in fact no evidence at all,of his existence.

That is not true. It's easy to make such claims, but you are just going to that extreme saying that Jesus is a myth who we have no evidence of. And we clearly have historical evidence that he existed. Both the New Testament, which is historical narratives and many parts of which are written within 15 years after his death, and clearly within the lifetime of those who knew him, and historical references outside the New Testament, such as Josephus (now, one of Josephus' reference to Jesus is disputed; the other is not...), but also others. Many have said that we have more historical references to Jesus and closer in time to his lifetime than we do to Tiberius, the Roman Emperor of the time he lived - indeed, it seems like special pleading to dispute Jesus existence.

(August 6, 2009 at 10:17 pm)padraic Wrote: To say the bible is is unscientific is a redundant phrase.

The Bible is not a scientific text, and so, I find it really bizarre to call it "proven to be scientifically unsound".

(August 6, 2009 at 10:17 pm)padraic Wrote: The Torah is the Mythology of a bronze tribe of goat herders and their nasty little mountain god "El". It was not written down until the first century BCE.The Gospels the mythology of a poor little rabbi,and founder of a minor Jewish sect who may may not have existed.

You are clearly taking the most pessimistic and and negative views possible, due to your antipathos. You are welcome to do that, but you can find plenty of historians who are more realistic and not still riding on the temporary epinephrenic overenthusiasm of the eruption of "higher" literary criticism. Meaning that the actually higher one has perhaps started to come about.

Okay Jon you asked for it!Let us start in Genesis chapter 1 it has enough erroneous science to fill an entire book with critical analysis.I will be quoting from the King James version of the bible.
3.And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4.And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5.And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Now here comes the problem:
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:
15.And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16.And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17.And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18.And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19.And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Coming from the inspiration of God I must say he gets an F in astronomy and his knowledge of astronomy as seen in the previous verses is atrocious to say the least.It says he separated night from day on the first day before he created the sun,moon,or the stars.Then in verse 18 he finally creates the sun,moon,and stars to do what he supposedly already did in verse five.Not to mention that the moon is technically not a light since it's light is nothing more than the reflection of the sun.I could do this all day my friend.

I just read most of the last months posts. Jon paul you type a lot. I honestly do not understand much of it. I know what reality is around me. I can touch, smell, see, hear, and taste the things around me. I can emotionaly attach myself to the things i sense. I have never sensed god. I could point to the sun and say that it is the vomit of a giant fire monster and its proof is in its existance could no more sway these intelligent atheist than can with your on going double talk drivel. To say that the sun (morals) exist so does the fire monster proves nothing to US. Hitler was RC too. But the inquisitions killed more people than he did. Look it up. They believed in the fire monster too. Lets not talk about the sexual falibilities of your clergy.

(August 6, 2009 at 11:09 pm)chatpilot Wrote: Then in verse 18 he finally creates the sun,moon,and stars to do what he supposedly already did in verse five.

After delving a bit into the patristics, I must say this interpretation is completely errorneous. God created everything of the material universe apart from Earth when he created the "Heaven", including the sun and the moon and the stars. In Genesis 1:2 we see that the light of the sun simply doesn't penetrate down into the earth, and is thus not visible. It hasn't become the light of the Earth yet. Now, the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God was hovering over the waters.. It first becomes the light of the Earth when the Earth is closer to finishing, in verse 18.

Here is some elaboration on the matter, and the orthodox interpretation of Genesis.

Quote:“In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth”

“In the beginning” God made all of creation. The heaven and the earth are all things, every material element. And all things, heaven and earth, have a beginning. Creation has a beginning. It is not beginningless like God. It came into existence from non-existence, and its existence is entirely dependent on God. Ii is not self-existent. It exists only because God wants it to exist. Only God is self-existent. Only He is self existence. He told Moses, “I am that I am”, or “I am the Existing One (Ο Ων)”, that is, He is Self Existence, the Fountain of Existence, Existence itself. He freely sustains all things in existence, not out of any necessity, but out of His boundless love.

“In the beginning God made the heaven”. What does “heaven” mean? In no way does it mean the angels and what we call heavenly noetic beings and heavenly intelligences. When Genesis speaks of heaven it means the material universe: stars, galaxies, nebulae, every kind of matter in space. In his 2nd Homily on Genesis, St. John Chrysostom says, “In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth…The Scripture says nothing about the invisible powers. It does not say, ‘In the beginning God made the angels or the archangels.’ And there was a reason. It was speaking to the Hebrews, who were very preoccupied with temporal matters and were unable to imagine any kind of noetic thing. It guides them from things perceptible to the senses, to the Creator of all things. And, therefore, learning about the Builder of the universe from created things, they could worship the Creator, instead of worshiping things that were made”.

Confirming the same thing, St. Basil says, “As it appears, there did exist something even before this world, something that our mind can contemplate, but it was left undescribed because it is inappropriate knowledge for those who are now just beginning to learn and, in knowledge, are as yet infants”. (Hex., Hom. I, 5) Thus, the creation of noetic beings, the creation of the angels, was left unmentioned.

One of the common misinterpretations made by people who study Genesis is the notion that the sun, the moon, and the stars were not created in the beginning but on the fourth “day” of creation, when these heavenly bodies became visible from the surface of the earth. We shall return to this point later, but for the present let us remain with the basic fact that “heaven” in Genesis refers to the material universe: the sun and moon and stars that were all created on the first “day” of creation.

“By the two extremes (of heaven and earth) Moses alludes to the existence of everything”, says Basil the Great, “assigning a prior beginning to the heaven and saying that the earth is second in existence. Nevertheless, whatever exists between the two extremes was likewise made with them. Even though he says nothing about the elements of fire, water, and air, use your intelligence, and you will understand, first of all, that all [elements] are mixed with all others and that, along with the earth, you will also find water and air and fire”. (Hex., Hom. I, 7)

All things already existed from the first day of creation. “God created the heaven and the earth, not each one by halves, but the entire heaven and the whole earth, including the substance itself with form. He is not merely the inventor of the shapes, but the Creator of the very nature of’ all that exists…The Scriptural narrative is silent and exercises our mind to work, giving it a few things in order to be able to deduce from them the remainder”. (Basil the Great, Hex., Hom. II, 3)

Therefore, the sun, the stars, and the moon already existed from the first “day”, even though they were not visible. That is to say, they were not visible from the earth.

The water

It is clear from the second verse of Genesis (1:2) that the earth was covered by a dense layer of water vapor. It was dense enough to block every ray of the sun from passing through, so that complete darkness reigned on the surface of the earth. The water that had been in vaporous form because of the heat of the earth’s crust began to cool slowly and change to liquid. It covered the whole earth like an enormous ocean. The change from vapor to liquid caused the clouds that covered the earth to disperse, and the diffused rays of the sun were able to pass through to illuminate the surface of the earth. This is exactly what Genesis relates with the words, “And God said, let there be light, and there was light”. (1:3) And later the vaporized water parted altogether from the water of the ocean, and a space was made between the two that Genesis calls the “firmament” (1:6-8). This is the sky between the earth and the clouds. Much later, on the fourth day of creation, the vapors diminished further, the clouds began to break up and scatter the way we see them today, and the heaven cleared and opened. Upon the heaven clearing up, the sun and moon and stars appeared at the same time before the face of the earth, and from this point everything that existed on the surface of the earth was illuminated by direct and not only diffused rays of the sun.

To help us better understand what happened, Basil the Great gives us a precise picture: ” ‘But the earth was not visible and unfinished (1:2),’ Moses says. How is it, if both the heavens and the earth were of equal honor, that the heavens were brought to perfection and the earth is still imperfect and unfinished? Or, generally what was the lack of preparation of the earth? And for what reason was it not visible? …Since nothing of what was to sprout and grow existed yet, it was reasonable for the narrative to call it incomplete…It said the earth was not visible for two reasons: because either man was not in existence to see it, or it was under the water that covered it and it was impossible to be seen. The waters had not yet been gathered into their places that God made later and called ’seas.’ What, then, is ‘not visible?’ First, something that bodily eyes naturally cannot see, such as our thought. It is also something that is naturally not visible but covered by something else, such as iron in the depth [of the earth]. I think it is with this meaning exactly that the earth is called invisible, since it was covered by water. And later, of course, since light may not have been made yet, it is not at all strange that the Scripture also calls it invisible because it was still in darkness and the air over it had not yet been illuminated…

“Therefore, since it does not say that God created the water but that ‘the earth was not visible,’ think for yourself by what it was covered that it was not plainly seen. Certainly tire was able to cover it, but fire gives light and can be seen through, allowing whatever it covers to be seen, rather than darkening it. And neither was the air opaque at that time. And air by nature is thin and transparent, admitting all forms of visible objects and displaying them for the eyes of observers. So what remains is for us to understand that water abounded on the surface of the earth because the liquid had not yet settled to its appointed place. And for this reason the earth was not only invisible, but unfinished as well, because when an abundance of water covers it, even now, the earth is prevented from bearing fruit. Therefore, the same cause made the earth both invisible and unfinished”. (Hom. II, 1, 3)

And what is the meaning of the words “And darkness was on the face of the deep” (1:2)? The Saint continues, “Here again are more occasions for myths and sources of impious fabrications by men who twist the sayings [of Scripture] to agree with their own conceptions. They do not explain the darkness to be what it really is: air that does not receive light, or a place that is shaded or, in any case, bereft of light for any reason. They explain it as an evil power, or rather as self-existent evil itself that is adversarial and hostile to God… Why, 0 man, do you flee far from the truth, with intentions that will occasion your destruction? The expression is simple and understood by everyone. It says the earth was not visible. What was the reason? Because it was covered by the ‘deep.’ And what is the meaning of the ‘deep?’ A great deal of water of unfathomable depth..”. (Hom. 1I, 4)

“When the heaven was made by God’s command, in a moment it extended to f ill its region, and it enclosed all that was in it as a continuous mass capable of dividing what was contained within from what was outside of it, thus making the space it enclosed unlighted by cutting off external light. Three things together are necessary for a shadow to exist: the light, a mass, and an unlighted place. Therefore, the darkness that covered the earth was due to the shadow of the heavenly mass [of vapor]. Try to understand me through this clear example: At midday you set up a tent of thick, impenetrable material and you shut yourself up in this improvised darkness. This is how you should imagine that darkness…At that time the water covered everything. This is why the darkness necessarily was said to be over the deep”. (Hom. II, 5)

It is clear from the preceding texts that on the first day of creation the heaven was completed, including the sun, the moon, and all the stars. But they were not visible; neither was their light able to reach the surface of the earth due to the layer of water vapor that covered the earth. Later, when the vapors dispersed, the diffused light of the sun was able to reach the surface of the earth and illuminate it, much as it does on cloudy days. The vapors thinned out as the water cooled and passed from a gaseous to a liquid state. In this way the earth was hidden by a vast ocean that covered it completely. Dense clouds remained suspended in the atmosphere. Between these clouds and the ocean there was clear space, which the Scripture calls the “firmament” (1:6-8). Finally, much later, on the fourth day of creation, the clouds dispersed and broke up and separated as we see them today, permitting the clear sky to appear, and the sun, the moon, and the stars with it. (St. John Chrysostom explains these things in exactly the same way in his Third Homily on Genesis.)

(August 7, 2009 at 2:29 am)SilentDon Wrote: I just read most of the last months posts. Jon paul you type a lot. I honestly do not understand much of it. I know what reality is around me. I can touch, smell, see, hear, and taste the things around me. I can emotionaly attach myself to the things i sense. I have never sensed god. I could point to the sun and say that it is the vomit of a giant fire monster and its proof is in its existance could no more sway these intelligent atheist than can with your on going double talk drivel. To say that the sun (morals) exist so does the fire monster proves nothing to US. Hitler was RC too. But the inquisitions killed more people than he did. Look it up. They believed in the fire monster too. Lets not talk about the sexual falibilities of your clergy.

You didn't ask any questions. You just made a bunch of standard atheist assertions that could have been taken straight out of the catechism of Richard Dawkins. And frankly, that is simply worthless.

Ahhh the old "He's God. He can do anything he likes." He don't need the sun to make light or morning or day. As the old saying goes; "With God, all things (no matter how ludicris) are possible.

I was waiting for the old "The people God was communicating with were to stupid to understand." and I was not disappointed.

God should have just chose some smarter people then.

This quoting of "orthodox interpretation" and some quotes of long dead clergy mean nothing. Just more ramblings of the superstitious giving a very verbose "Goddidit" defense of their beliefs.

Very unimpressive.

(August 7, 2009 at 10:08 am)Dotard Wrote: This quoting of "orthodox interpretation" and some quotes of long dead clergy mean nothing. Just more ramblings of the superstitious giving a very verbose "Goddidit" defense of their beliefs.

And this rambling is just yet another ad hominem fallacy.

The point is not the hominem, but the nature of the orthodox interpretation of Genesis, as opposed to the heterodox interpretation presented by chatpilot.

Me, being an orthodox Christian, I do not accept chatpilots interpretations, but I accept the orthodox Christian interpretation.

So he can attack his straw men all he likes. It makes no difference, because it is not my belief he is attacking.

---

(August 7, 2009 at 10:08 am)Dotard Wrote: Ahhh the old "He's God. He can do anything he likes." He don't need the sun to make light or morning or day. As the old saying goes; "With God, all things (no matter how ludicris) are possible.

The sun did already exist, but it's light did not penetrate the earth in the earth's early stages (Genesis 1:1-2).

As a sidenote, light (photons) existence precedes the existence of the sun, anyway.

(August 7, 2009 at 10:08 am)Dotard Wrote: I was waiting for the old "The people God was communicating with were to stupid to understand." and I was not disappointed.

Yes, and chatpilot is one of them.

(August 7, 2009 at 10:08 am)Dotard Wrote: God should have just chose some smarter people then.

He did, obviously.

(August 7, 2009 at 8:42 am)Jon Paul Wrote:

(August 6, 2009 at 11:09 pm)chatpilot Wrote: Then in verse 18 he finally creates the sun,moon,and stars to do what he supposedly already did in verse five.

After delving a bit into the patristics, I must say this interpretation is completely errorneous. God created everything of the material universe apart from Earth when he created the "Heaven", including the sun and the moon and the stars. In Genesis 1:2 we see that the light of the sun simply doesn't penetrate down into the earth, and is thus not visible. It hasn't become the light of the Earth yet. Now, the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God was hovering over the waters.. It first becomes the light of the Earth when the Earth is closer to finishing, in verse 18.

Here is some elaboration on the matter, and the orthodox interpretation of Genesis.

---

Quote:“In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth”

“In the beginning” God made all of creation. The heaven and the earth are all things, every material element. And all things, heaven and earth, have a beginning. Creation has a beginning. It is not beginningless like God. It came into existence from non-existence, and its existence is entirely dependent on God. Ii is not self-existent. It exists only because God wants it to exist. Only God is self-existent. Only He is self existence. He told Moses, “I am that I am”, or “I am the Existing One (Ο Ων)”, that is, He is Self Existence, the Fountain of Existence, Existence itself. He freely sustains all things in existence, not out of any necessity, but out of His boundless love.

“In the beginning God made the heaven”. What does “heaven” mean? In no way does it mean the angels and what we call heavenly noetic beings and heavenly intelligences. When Genesis speaks of heaven it means the material universe: stars, galaxies, nebulae, every kind of matter in space. In his 2nd Homily on Genesis, St. John Chrysostom says, “In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth…The Scripture says nothing about the invisible powers. It does not say, ‘In the beginning God made the angels or the archangels.’ And there was a reason. It was speaking to the Hebrews, who were very preoccupied with temporal matters and were unable to imagine any kind of noetic thing. It guides them from things perceptible to the senses, to the Creator of all things. And, therefore, learning about the Builder of the universe from created things, they could worship the Creator, instead of worshiping things that were made”.

Confirming the same thing, St. Basil says, “As it appears, there did exist something even before this world, something that our mind can contemplate, but it was left undescribed because it is inappropriate knowledge for those who are now just beginning to learn and, in knowledge, are as yet infants”. (Hex., Hom. I, 5) Thus, the creation of noetic beings, the creation of the angels, was left unmentioned.

One of the common misinterpretations made by people who study Genesis is the notion that the sun, the moon, and the stars were not created in the beginning but on the fourth “day” of creation, when these heavenly bodies became visible from the surface of the earth. We shall return to this point later, but for the present let us remain with the basic fact that “heaven” in Genesis refers to the material universe: the sun and moon and stars that were all created on the first “day” of creation.

“By the two extremes (of heaven and earth) Moses alludes to the existence of everything”, says Basil the Great, “assigning a prior beginning to the heaven and saying that the earth is second in existence. Nevertheless, whatever exists between the two extremes was likewise made with them. Even though he says nothing about the elements of fire, water, and air, use your intelligence, and you will understand, first of all, that all [elements] are mixed with all others and that, along with the earth, you will also find water and air and fire”. (Hex., Hom. I, 7)

All things already existed from the first day of creation. “God created the heaven and the earth, not each one by halves, but the entire heaven and the whole earth, including the substance itself with form. He is not merely the inventor of the shapes, but the Creator of the very nature of’ all that exists…The Scriptural narrative is silent and exercises our mind to work, giving it a few things in order to be able to deduce from them the remainder”. (Basil the Great, Hex., Hom. II, 3)

Therefore, the sun, the stars, and the moon already existed from the first “day”, even though they were not visible. That is to say, they were not visible from the earth.

The water

It is clear from the second verse of Genesis (1:2) that the earth was covered by a dense layer of water vapor. It was dense enough to block every ray of the sun from passing through, so that complete darkness reigned on the surface of the earth. The water that had been in vaporous form because of the heat of the earth’s crust began to cool slowly and change to liquid. It covered the whole earth like an enormous ocean. The change from vapor to liquid caused the clouds that covered the earth to disperse, and the diffused rays of the sun were able to pass through to illuminate the surface of the earth. This is exactly what Genesis relates with the words, “And God said, let there be light, and there was light”. (1:3) And later the vaporized water parted altogether from the water of the ocean, and a space was made between the two that Genesis calls the “firmament” (1:6-8). This is the sky between the earth and the clouds. Much later, on the fourth day of creation, the vapors diminished further, the clouds began to break up and scatter the way we see them today, and the heaven cleared and opened. Upon the heaven clearing up, the sun and moon and stars appeared at the same time before the face of the earth, and from this point everything that existed on the surface of the earth was illuminated by direct and not only diffused rays of the sun.

To help us better understand what happened, Basil the Great gives us a precise picture: ” ‘But the earth was not visible and unfinished (1:2),’ Moses says. How is it, if both the heavens and the earth were of equal honor, that the heavens were brought to perfection and the earth is still imperfect and unfinished? Or, generally what was the lack of preparation of the earth? And for what reason was it not visible? …Since nothing of what was to sprout and grow existed yet, it was reasonable for the narrative to call it incomplete…It said the earth was not visible for two reasons: because either man was not in existence to see it, or it was under the water that covered it and it was impossible to be seen. The waters had not yet been gathered into their places that God made later and called ’seas.’ What, then, is ‘not visible?’ First, something that bodily eyes naturally cannot see, such as our thought. It is also something that is naturally not visible but covered by something else, such as iron in the depth [of the earth]. I think it is with this meaning exactly that the earth is called invisible, since it was covered by water. And later, of course, since light may not have been made yet, it is not at all strange that the Scripture also calls it invisible because it was still in darkness and the air over it had not yet been illuminated…

“Therefore, since it does not say that God created the water but that ‘the earth was not visible,’ think for yourself by what it was covered that it was not plainly seen. Certainly tire was able to cover it, but fire gives light and can be seen through, allowing whatever it covers to be seen, rather than darkening it. And neither was the air opaque at that time. And air by nature is thin and transparent, admitting all forms of visible objects and displaying them for the eyes of observers. So what remains is for us to understand that water abounded on the surface of the earth because the liquid had not yet settled to its appointed place. And for this reason the earth was not only invisible, but unfinished as well, because when an abundance of water covers it, even now, the earth is prevented from bearing fruit. Therefore, the same cause made the earth both invisible and unfinished”. (Hom. II, 1, 3)

And what is the meaning of the words “And darkness was on the face of the deep” (1:2)? The Saint continues, “Here again are more occasions for myths and sources of impious fabrications by men who twist the sayings [of Scripture] to agree with their own conceptions. They do not explain the darkness to be what it really is: air that does not receive light, or a place that is shaded or, in any case, bereft of light for any reason. They explain it as an evil power, or rather as self-existent evil itself that is adversarial and hostile to God… Why, 0 man, do you flee far from the truth, with intentions that will occasion your destruction? The expression is simple and understood by everyone. It says the earth was not visible. What was the reason? Because it was covered by the ‘deep.’ And what is the meaning of the ‘deep?’ A great deal of water of unfathomable depth..”. (Hom. 1I, 4)

“When the heaven was made by God’s command, in a moment it extended to f ill its region, and it enclosed all that was in it as a continuous mass capable of dividing what was contained within from what was outside of it, thus making the space it enclosed unlighted by cutting off external light. Three things together are necessary for a shadow to exist: the light, a mass, and an unlighted place. Therefore, the darkness that covered the earth was due to the shadow of the heavenly mass [of vapor]. Try to understand me through this clear example: At midday you set up a tent of thick, impenetrable material and you shut yourself up in this improvised darkness. This is how you should imagine that darkness…At that time the water covered everything. This is why the darkness necessarily was said to be over the deep”. (Hom. II, 5)

It is clear from the preceding texts that on the first day of creation the heaven was completed, including the sun, the moon, and all the stars. But they were not visible; neither was their light able to reach the surface of the earth due to the layer of water vapor that covered the earth. Later, when the vapors dispersed, the diffused light of the sun was able to reach the surface of the earth and illuminate it, much as it does on cloudy days. The vapors thinned out as the water cooled and passed from a gaseous to a liquid state. In this way the earth was hidden by a vast ocean that covered it completely. Dense clouds remained suspended in the atmosphere. Between these clouds and the ocean there was clear space, which the Scripture calls the “firmament” (1:6-8). Finally, much later, on the fourth day of creation, the clouds dispersed and broke up and separated as we see them today, permitting the clear sky to appear, and the sun, the moon, and the stars with it. (St. John Chrysostom explains these things in exactly the same way in his Third Homily on Genesis.)

---

(August 7, 2009 at 2:29 am)SilentDon Wrote: I just read most of the last months posts. Jon paul you type a lot. I honestly do not understand much of it. I know what reality is around me. I can touch, smell, see, hear, and taste the things around me. I can emotionaly attach myself to the things i sense. I have never sensed god. I could point to the sun and say that it is the vomit of a giant fire monster and its proof is in its existance could no more sway these intelligent atheist than can with your on going double talk drivel. To say that the sun (morals) exist so does the fire monster proves nothing to US. Hitler was RC too. But the inquisitions killed more people than he did. Look it up. They believed in the fire monster too. Lets not talk about the sexual falibilities of your clergy.

---

You didn't ask any questions. You just made a bunch of standard atheist assertions that could have been taken straight out of the catechism of Richard Dawkins. And frankly, that is simply worthless.

So much for "Objective truth". The 'divine creation of the Lord' first transcribed by backward peasants of the day, then changed over time, then interpreted and re-interpreted by St. John Chrysostom and Basil the Great et al, then re-interpreted and re-iterated by you to finally anounce 'I think what god meant to say was.....' That's quite a bold statement you to be speaking on god's behalf. I've never been so sure of myself to announce such a grandiose intention.

I'm gonna give it one last go, then retire to a silent role. EVIDENCE. If you have any - provide it. Not a discussion about evidence, or the difference between subjective and objective evidence. Nor references to previous posts claiming that evidence is there (i've checked - its not). Nor a diatribe about the metaphysics of potentiality and actuality. We'll leave the discussion about evidential validity until AFTER you've provided some.

Regards