• Lemminary@lemmy.world
    51·
    3 months ago

    Well, God in his infinite wisdom counted the day & night, obviously. One Mississippi, two Mississippi. Ah ah ah! Three Mississippies!

  • paddirn@lemmy.worldEnglish
    44·
    3 months ago

    Granted, it’s just a fictional book we’re talking about, but it does start off with:

    And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. [Genesis 1:3-5 ESV]

    So, within the fiction of the book, there was some sort of other light created before the Sun, doesn’t really make sense that there would be words for day/night/morning before the Sun existed, but maybe there was a temporary light and that created day cycles, whatever. Nitpicking the bible about literal interpretations of things in Genesis seems almost pointless though. It’s stuff that’s easy to dance around and can be hand-waved away.

    The bible is probably supposed to be interpreted metaphorically in alot of parts, so pointing out semantic things like this is the equivalent of responding to a long political post with

    “You’re”

    As if pointing out a single grammatical flaw somehow destroys their entire argument. This was probably meant to be fluff, just someone speaking poetically about an event that nobody would ever know anything about anyways.

    • Batman@lemmy.world
      11·
      3 months ago

      Also there is a an antiquated meaning of day which just means a period of time.

      The Hebrew word yom translated into the English “day” can mean more than one thing. It can refer to the 24-hour period of time that it takes for the earth to rotate on its axis (e.g., “there are 24 hours in a day”). It can refer to the period of daylight between dawn and dusk (e.g., “it gets pretty hot during the day but it cools down a bit at night”). And it can refer to an unspecified period of time (e.g., “back in my grandfather’s day . . .”).

    • MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml
      7·
      3 months ago

      So, within the fiction of the book, there was some sort of other light created before the Sun

      Ah, the Silmarillion.

    • Sordid@lemmy.world
      2·
      3 months ago

      just someone speaking poetically about an event that nobody would ever know anything about anyways

      Kinda makes me wonder whether he’d feel foolish about what he wrote if he were still alive today and had modern scientific knowledge.

    • ghterve@lemmy.world
      2·
      3 months ago

      As if pointing out a single grammatical flaw somehow destroys their entire argument

      That’s not what that means. That means the person responding cared so little about what they had to say that they are completely ignoring it. It is an insult in the form of disrespect.

      • paddirn@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        3 months ago

        Go bæclinga hwonne tîma +nðh ðêah−hwæðere cwyldtîd Old Englisc spellung sêman incorrect, ðêah nêan cynerôf palster wiðæftan stund ðêah was ðone as “correct” Englisc. In ðone as tôweardnes, what is ðrêagan today lôgian w¯ære ungelîclic Englisc.

        • smeenz@lemmy.nz
          1·
          3 months ago

          As far as I can tell, we’re not speaking in old English in this thread. Well, I suppose you are, but not in the original comment.

          With that argument, I could just as easily say you didn’t spell your words correctly in the original Greek, or Latin, or Etruscan.

    • BambiDiego@lemmy.world
      2·
      3 months ago

      This is a common misconception, but since the universe isn’t centered around the “Earth” object but rather an omnidirectional set of rendering layers, the sun already had a reference point, it just wasn’t loaded in yet.

  • Ech@lemm.eeEnglish
    23·
    3 months ago

    I mean, technically, a day passing doesn’t explicitly need the sun as it is a measure of the rotational speed of the Earth (ie time), not the position of the sun in the sky. The latter was/is simply used to measure the former.

    • Psychodelic@lemmy.world
      20·
      3 months ago

      That’s not really a fair/honest argument when the concept of a day existed long before humans knew the earth was rotating. Originally, a day was defined as the rising and setting of the sun

      • Ech@lemm.eeEnglish
        6·
        3 months ago

        I’m not really arguing anything, just pointing it out.

      • dohpaz42@lemmy.worldEnglish
        4·
        3 months ago

        To humans, before we discovered the concept of rotations around the sun, you are correct. But for an advanced being/race that had the power to create universes… I’m sure they understood far greater concepts than the rising and setting of the an orange fireball in the sky. 😊

    • astrsk@kbin.run
      9·
      3 months ago

      Without a reference frame, there would be no way to tell when one rotation had been completed.

  • Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de
    17·
    3 months ago

    First of all, a literal reading is not required but let’s read it literally.

    1. God is all powerful. God could have made light circles (days) without the sun.

    2. If days means the time unit… Then… Where is the issue.

    This is embarrassing. Like even for a meme.

      • Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de
        7·
        3 months ago

        Dude, your meme is about logical consistency of the bible. To test for logical consistency, you have to assume it is true to test it against itself.

        Also I am not a believer, so I don’t believe it is true… But I can argue in favor of something that I am not believing. A basic skill that people need for scientific process.

          • Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de
            3·
            3 months ago

            I am not sure what is a quote from Carl Sagan and I am not sure why anyone should care who said it in this context.

            I assume the second “it” is the quote? Maybe not? Do me the favor and help me to understand your message.

            • TokenBoomer@lemmy.worldOP
              2·
              3 months ago

              Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua:

              is a literal arrangement of words, but nonsensical, like the logic of the creation of the bible. Can you argue in favor of Lorem ipsum?

              • Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de
                5·
                3 months ago

                Assuming you mean the content of “Lorem Ipsum”, I can’t argue in favor of it. The content of “Lorem Ipsum” is literally intentionally meaningless. It doesn’t propose a position, argue a point or even express a thought. I can’t argue in favor of nothing.

                But as your way of expressing yourself is so poor, I could intentionally misunderstand you and argue in favor of “Lorem Ipsum”… As a placeholder text. Easy first Argument, it is meaningless and well known as a placeholder text, making difficult to confuse it with real content while being similar to real European languages.

                I am disappointed that you didn’t help me to understand what quote you meant or what “it” was. But I can only blame myself at this point.

                • TokenBoomer@lemmy.worldOP
                  3·
                  3 months ago

                  “Light Circles” and “Time Units” are literally not in the Bible. You literally used literally incorrectly.

    • rdri@lemmy.world
      4·
      3 months ago

      God could have made light circles (days) without the sun.

      For what reason was the sun created then?

      • ITGuyLevi@programming.dev
        2·
        3 months ago

        I’m guessing it was probably for the same reason he buried dinosaur bones all over the place… Or for the same reason he created trillions of stars billions of years before he felt like creating light earlier that week (or are stars actually a lot closer to get their light here so quickly after creation?)

      • Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de
        1·
        3 months ago

        That is a bit of a pointless endeavor.

        For what reason was the sun created if it was created for light cycles? I mean what is the point of light cycles? Whatever the point of it is, what is the point of that? You see the issue.

        Also you are asking for a motivation when a motivation doesn’t prove or disprove anything. I mean maybe God has multiple personalities and they like to fuck with each other. Maybe it was a creative process and he liked the idea of a sun. Maybe he wanted everything to have a “natural” reason to better test our faith. Maybe he got high and thought the idea of a huge burning ball is funny.

        I understand why you ask. But I don’t have an answer and I don’t think an answer matters for what I propose. Which is, even in a literal reading It is not really contradictory, maybe just a little odd.

        • rdri@lemmy.world
          4·
          3 months ago

          if it was created for light cycles?

          Since those light cycles existed before the sun was created there is no reason for the sun to exist.

          maybe God has multiple personalities and they like to fuck with each other

          Or the god is a bunch of aliens. Or some other fantasy. If you wish to pose such twists as parts of arguments I’d guess your point is to remove any value from conversation in order to stop more people from taking a part (aka trolling).

          • Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de
            1·
            3 months ago

            No. I am not trolling. You are missing my point.

            I don’t believe in a god. But even if I want to assume that there is a god like describe in the bible. There is no way to know what the motivation of a god is that e.g. created an apple tree that Adam wasn’t allowed to eat from and place it accessable for Adam, knowing that Adam will eat from it because he doesn’t understand right and wrong and than punish him for it. The god in the bible is acting in way that at the very least I don’t understand and would argue that it is crazy behavior.

            I am saying I don’t know the motivation of a (probably non-existent) god with that kind of history. But I also don’t understand why Hilter committed the Holocaust and that happened. Mine or your ability to understand someone’s motivation is not required for someone to act a certain way.

            • rdri@lemmy.world
              2·
              3 months ago

              I see. You’re only generally accepting that there may be crazy justifications for anything. But this very aspect switches the topic of discussion to “we’ll never know bruh”, thus silencing the discussion. I’ve also talked to some people who told me about their god. My impression is that their logic is mostly the same as the above. Arguing with them is mostly useless, but it doesn’t remove my desire to argue. “Leave them alone” is basically what your logic says, and I disagree that I shouldn’t express myself in discussion.

              • Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de
                1·
                3 months ago

                No, that is not my point at all.

                My point is that if like OP intended, you want to criticize the religion’s contradictions, do it well. In the case of the creation story, a lot of christians do not believe it to be a literal story and have a bunch of different Interpretation. I have my own issues with that approach but those Interpretation might or might not be contradictory without looking into the precis interpretation, it is impossible to tell. As the goal of op was to highlight the contradictory nature of the christian beliefs and didn’t provide any precis interpretation of the text, I looked at the specific text that op provided and considered some interpretation and figured that op did an embarrassing job to show the contradictory nature of their belief. as with the provided text even if read literally, there is an non contradictory way to understand the text. While maybe odd or unlikely, totally possible and therefore non contradictory.

                Your question about the motivation of god to be that way as you thinks it doesn’t make sense, is utterly valid from the perspective of a person trying to figure out how credible they perceive the religion in question but that was and isn’t what this discussion was about and what I am arguing. I am arguing about whether or not it is contradictory and not that pointing out contradictions is bad, or that you can’t criticize it, or that god’s actions would make sense to me.

                If you think it makes no sense that god created the sun after the light cycles, I disagree with you but I don’t say that you shouldn’t argue your perspective. I am saying that you joined a different discussion and my reaction was based in that discussion. And I think if you want to have the other discussion about whether or not it makes sense, you are welcome to but maybe don’t inject it in another discussion and be surprised if the other person thinks that your injection is intended to be on topic. That creates confusion.

                Tldr: topic is “is it contradictory?” And your injection was about “does it make sense?”. Different topics. Different discussion. Not the point of the discussion that I had, therefore I dismissed it as not relevant to the discussion. Have the other discussion if you want, just don’t be mad that anyone misunderstood your intentions with the injection.

                • rdri@lemmy.world
                  1·
                  3 months ago

                  It doesn’t seem like you can contribute to any religion based discussion if you’re willing to accept that many possibilities (interpretations) of basic concepts or events. This also reminds me of how flat-earthers justify stuff.

  • BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world
    15·
    3 months ago

    I read a Rabbi’s take once, that he believes Genesis 1 is based on a vision that YHWH gave to one of the prophets (it was added later than the second creation story). He argued that it’s not supposed to be envisioned from a cosmic perspective, which is something of a modern take, but a terrestrial one, as if “figuratively standing on the earth - a cloud of dust - as God forms everything around it.” So the creation of light is the sun, but the sun isn’t visible unless the sky begins to clear.

    Just thought I’d share that take. I always thought it was an interesting one.

    • nifty@lemmy.world
      31·
      3 months ago

      The great thing about rhetoric is that any smart enough person can do any number of mental gymnastics to create a semi-plausible argument. But as a society we need to move away from things which aren’t grounded in reality

        • JovialMicrobial@lemm.ee
          8·
          3 months ago

          Honestly there’s innumerable works of fiction that’d be better for deriving meaning, morals, and advice for navigating life’s complexities.
          The key is to embrace that it’s fiction. it doesn’t need to be literally true for a piece of writing to be used that way.

          I learned this in 8th grade when my teacher had us read the book The Hatchet and treat it like the bible… which was to interpret the text and find life lessons in it. Great teacher. I still use what I learned from her class.

        • nifty@lemmy.world
          7·
          3 months ago

          Agreed, it’s only problematic if fans of a Marvel movie decide that public policy should be shaped by the ideas of character in that movie

      • HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com
        4·
        3 months ago

        this is part of what moved me from agnostic 50/50 to athiest decimal to 99decimal. Its like yeah you can rationalize and tinker and whatnot no matter what the base stuff you start with is. Granted though most of the change for me was qanon.

          • HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com
            5·
            3 months ago

            well so extreme agnostics like I was, real fence sitter types, tend to have, or at least I had. This idea of there must be something to religion even if its really skewed or such. The idea is that common folks can’t possibly be believing some bs and then live their whole lives around it and pass it down generations. And its easy to think that way when the origins are all lost in time. Seeing straight out examples of it in real time. wow. it opened my eyes.

  • Marthirial@lemmy.world
    10·
    3 months ago

    Before the sun was created, a day was 4.97 billion years, and then the sun came up and a day was 24 hours. I see no issue with this superstition.

  • Zloubida@lemmy.world
    9·
    3 months ago

    Atheists 🤝 Evangelicals

    Thinking that the Bible

    should be read literally

    More seriously, did you know that there are two Creation stories in the Bible (in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2) and that these two stories are contradictory? But the people who added the second story did not replace the first with their own. They did not mind that the two stories contradicted each other because they knew perfectly well that these stories were allegories and were not to be read as historical accounts to be interpreted literally. Those who insist on a literal reading do not respect the will of the authors, whether God exists and is the inspiration or not.

  • fox2263@lemmy.worldEnglish
    8·
    3 months ago

    The first day without sun the “day” was timeless so was actually say 1000000 days while the earth was formed 😂

  • Zip2@feddit.uk
    6·
    3 months ago

    I once heard that it was thought in some circles that “day” was just a mistranslation, and that the original meaning was “a period of time of unspecified length”.

  • mavu@discuss.tchncs.de
    4·
    3 months ago

    The religion truth is that days were made by god, and it’s the sun that rises in the morning of the day, not the day starting because of the sun.