How come SciFi always recycles the 'false gods' premise?

Mostly good points above as well, and given the hostility here from many of the apparent agnostic/atheist set, it's certainly not unfounded. Science fiction is about ideas, about humanity, about speculation, about asking the big questions, and the biggest is "WHY". There are those here who do and DID dismiss that question because it's not so easily found in a test tube.

But the question won't be dismissed.

Ever.

So, why not explore it in the fictional genres best suited to such esoterical speculation, science fiction and fantasy?

 

What Bible are you reading? The Bible is the collection of myths and legends of a pre-scientific people. The only way to reconcile the Bible with such things as actual geology, biology and archaeology is to radically re-interpret what's written in reverse, taking actual facts and trying to hammer them into 'allegorical' or 'metaphorical' readings that have little to nothing in common with the actual, literary text.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

I wasn't going to go there, but...the Bible is NOT a scientific text, meant to be taken in such a light.

And I'm a believer.

 

That's what I said. It's not a scientific text. But when it touches on science it is accurate, sometimes before Human science catches up.

Trent, I'm reading the same Bible that's gathering dust on shelves across the world. Unfortunately this book has been maligned for centuries by "believers" wanting to twist it into their own dogmas with the end result being honest-hearted people rejecting it outright.

I'm risking another warning about getting off topic. Maybe we should move this elsewhere? Or could we get the whole topic moved/copied to Misc. so we can get as off-topic as we want?

 

Example?

 

Yes, please.

 

Uh, no it doesn't. It describes the earth as a flat disc with a dome of water over it. That's as far from scientifically accurate as you can git.

 

Um, no. The bible doesn't say flat disc. At least, not every English translation. Remember, the Bible was written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Depending on which translation your using the wording may be slightly different, yet convey the same meaning.

Examples:

Shape of the Earth

The Hebrew word here translated circle is "chugh." Other Bible translations say "the globe of the earth" (Douay Version) or “the round earth.”(Moffatt)

This was written in the 8th Century BC. When the common thought was the earth was flat. 200 years later the Greeks theorized the Earth was a sphere, yet even that wasn't accepted as fact until several centuries later.

What Holds the Earth Up?

Here the Bible clearly states that the Earth is not supported by anything.

This was written in the 15th Century BC. Other civilizations at this time and later made inaccurate claims. The Egyptians said it was supported by pillars; the Greeks said by Atlas; others said by an elephant standing on a turtle that swam in a cosmic sea.

Origin of the Universe:

Now, many will scoff at the claim that "God created" the Earth but the opening account of Genesis shows that the Earth (and the entire universe) had a definite beginning.

Noted astronomer Robert Jastrow said “Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.”—God and the Astronomers (New York, 1978), p. 14

Tectonic Activity and Geologic Formation:

The textbook The Book of Popular Science states" From Pre-Cambrian times down to the present, the perpetual process of building and destroying mountains has continued. . . . Not only have mountains originated from the bottom of vanished seas, but they have often been submerged long after their formation, and then re-elevated."

The Bible and this textbook both describe that the earth's features did indeed move since its creation. Tectonic plates would produce this kind of movement.

The Water Cycle

Quite similar to how an encyclopedia describes the same process; "Water . . . evaporates from the surface of the oceans into the atmosphere . . . Steadily moving air currents in the earth’s atmosphere carry the moist air inland. When the air cools, the vapor condenses to form water droplets. These are seen most commonly as clouds. Often the droplets come together to form raindrops. If the atmosphere is cold enough, snowflakes form instead of raindrops. In either case, water that has traveled from an ocean hundreds or even thousands of miles away falls to the earth’s surface. There it gathers into streams or soaks into the ground and begins its journey back to the sea."

These are just a few examples. In addition the Bible, specifically the Mosaic Law found in Leviticus and Deuteronomy emphasizes the importance of good hygiene, sanitation and quarantine of diseased individuals. While it never comes out and states "because of disease and germs" the results are still the same. However it took science hundreds, if not thousands of years to get people to wash regularly, use soap, don't play with dead things and keep the sick away from the healthy.

As I stated, the Bible isn't a science textbook. Yet, never will you be able to find a place where the Bible contradicts science.

 

How very selective of you:

So there's a heaven and an Earth before anything else. Totally scientifically false.

Wait, so there's light before there is a sun and a moon? And he separated them somehow physically, and not as simply the absence or presence of a source of light?


Totally scientifically inaccurate.

There we have our firmament that stretched above the Earth around which water is kept; making it a dome of water above the Earth.


Totally scientifically inaccurate, if not outright ridiculous.

Wait a minute; I thought he created heaven at the very beginning.

Fruits and plants first? Last time I checked, life started either amongst the volcanic vents under water, or in space, or in a pool of amino acids, and first there were bacteria. And the first primitive plants and animals were under water.

Oh, so NOW he creates what seem to be stars. Last time I checked, stars came FIRST, not well after the Earth was already formed. Also, hadn't he already divided the day from the night? Well, dang it, these guys can't even keep their own story straight, let alone that it would fit with science.


Also, notice according to the bible, the stars, sun, and the moon, exist solely to light the Earth, and show the season here. Or in short, they circle around the Earth, above the heavenly dome of water that god created.


Or in short, totally scientifically inaccurate.

Wait, huh? Didn't he just create the stars? If not, than what the hell are those other lights?


Anyway, here we are again, the sun and the moon, placed to do things on Earth. Or in short, they circle the Earth in that very same firmament. And they came LONG after the Earth was created.


Scientifically ridiculous.

Wait, wait, wait, he needs to divide the light from the darkness AGAIN? Didn't he already did that twice over?

Also, notice multiple times it's divide "light from darkness". Which is of course scientifically ridiculous. You cannot divide light from darkness. Darkness is simply the absence of light.

Scientifically inaccurate.

Ah, so whales come directly from water. Seeing as they lived on the Earth first and back in, scientifically inaccurate.


Also, birds sprang from the water right away, instead of coming from animals that lived upon the surface first, scientifically inaccurate.

Ah, so God created man last upon the sixth day. Now unlike the popular mythology, god didn't rest on the seventh day. If you go to verse 2, you'll find god starting from scratch, except making man FIRST, and THEN creating the plants and the animals and putting them all in Eden, where they're not allowed to eat from one tree, and eventually get evicted from that place and only THEN get dominion over the Earth, rather without god telling them, even though he did just above.

Showing us actually that the ones who compiled the bible had two creation stories to choose from, and not knowing for certain which was right they erred on the side of caution and placed both of them in the bible.

 

The creation accounts in Genesis are not meant to be exact scientific representations of what happened at the beginning of time. This is one of the instances in which the words should be taken literarily (not sure if that's a real word, but it's what my Bible teacher uses) instead of literally. The people of the time weren't using Genesis as a science textbook. The main point is that God is responsible for creating the universe. The exact details are not necessary, and they would be pretty difficult to hand down in an oral tradition because of the complexity of the process.

 

^ Yes, that's the usual excuse. But Shawnster said:

3D Master just posted a whole slew of counterexamples to the original claim, and those were only from the very beginning of the book, too. There's a lot more where that came from.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

I think you're over-examining here. BSG/DS9 and B5 really didn't have to do with "false gods," necessarily, but religion and faith, and the social structures and conflict that surround those real world concepts. Introducing an omnipotent creator of the universe as a "character" wouldn't make much sense, nor could I see this character or entity being written in a way that would seem anything but contrived. If you're suggesting a world where the presence of God is believed by everyone and followed by evidence, as sci-fi watchers we would still be skeptical... and it probably wouldn't be that interesting.

Needless to say I actually do believe in a creator, in a God and a design to the universe. I think there's actually MORE we could explore with religion and faith in science fiction...

 

Let me start by saying that while I believe in Creation I am not a Creationist nor do I believe in Creationism. The bible does not support the notion that the Earth is only 6,000 years old (roughly).

Well, let's revisit 3D Master's points and see if we can find an explanation that harmonizes the Bible's Genesis account with science.

Some of 3D Master's complaints stem from the particular translation of the Bible he's using. For example he refers to whales at one point. Other Bible translations don't specifically mention whales. It's good to remember the Bible wasn't originally written in English. What one translation calls whales another may call "sea monsters."

Let me preface this by stating that Genesis is written under the assumption that God is the Creator of all things. If anyone feels this statement alone contradicts science, then there is nothing more I can say.

However, if anyone is willing to consider the facts presented in Genesis without being turned off by the conclusion of God or a higher intelligence, then consider this rebuttal.

As with other things that are misrepresented or misunderstood, the first chapter of the Bible deserves at least a fair hearing. The need is to investigate and determine whether it harmonizes with known facts, not to mold it to fit some theoretical framework. Also to be remembered, the Genesis account was not written to show the “how” of creation. Rather, it covers major events in a progressive way, describing what things were formed, the order in which they were formed and the time interval, or “day,” in which each first appeared.

When examining the Genesis account, it is helpful to keep in mind that it approaches matters from the standpoint of people on earth. So it describes events as they would have been seen by human observers had they been present. This can be noted from its treatment of events on the fourth Genesis “day.” There the sun and moon are described as great luminaries in comparison to the stars. Yet many stars are far greater than our sun, and the moon is insignificant in comparison to them. But not to an earthly observer. So, as seen from the earth, the sun appears to be a ‘greater light that rules the day’ and the moon a ‘lesser light that dominates the night.’

Why? What came before the heavens or, in other words, the creation of the Universe?

The first part of Genesis indicates that the earth could have existed for billions of years before the first Genesis “day,” though it does not say for how long. You can see this conclusion in the opening statement "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Notice this creation was before the first day. How long before the first day? The Bible doesn't say. Science tells us from geological records the Earth is several million years old. Nothing in the Genesis account contradicts this. "In the beginning..." could well have been many million years before "The First Day."

Science tells us the Universe appeared suddenly. This sudden act of creation is called "The Big Bang." Again, the Bible states the same thing. "In the beginning..." all the matter in the heavens and the slag that later coalesced into the Earth were formed. Instead of attributing this to the Big Bang, the act is attributed to God.

Again, this goes back to the scientist I referred to above. "The essence of the strange developments is that the Universe had, in some sense, a beginning—that it began at a certain moment in time. Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same.” - Astronomer Robert Jastrow.

Scientific Fact: The universe and all mattered appeared suddenly, in an instant.

Conclusion 1: The Big Bang Theory
Conclusion 2: God created everything.

Before going further, let's ask the question "what are the heavens and the earth referred to in Genesis 1:1?

We've already answered what the Earth is. It's this big hard thing we're standing on. Third rock from the sun. Mostly harmless.

The heavens are everything we see in the sky. Including the Sun, moon, stars, other planets, etc... Everything in the heavens.

Now, this is one thing that 3D Master has me puzzled about. He feels that since the Bible mentions creating the heavens at the beginning and then the heavens or expanse/firmament is created on Day 2 and then heavens/luminaries are again mentioned on Day 4 that this must mean the Bible is false. I'm not understanding the reasoning on this. We use the term heavens in many number of ways - God lives in heaven. Birds fly in heaven. "There may yet be brothers of man even now fighting to survive somewhere beyond the heavens." Same word heaven used in all three examples yet each example refers to something entirely different.

How come we can do that yet the Bible can't?

I'll go into specific detail about each of the Creative Days. As I've pointed out though before the creation of life on Earth, some of these other things were formed or forming.

Now, let's look at each "Day."

Day 1 - Let there be light.

Of course the sun and moon were in outer space long before this first “day,” but their light did not reach the surface of the earth for an earthly observer to see. Now, light evidently came to be visible on earth on this first “day,” and the rotating earth began to have alternating days and nights.

Day 2 - The expanse between the waters

Why? How much water is in the atmosphere now? How much water was in the atmosphere when the Earth formed?

As the Earth continues to cool, the atmosphere forms. Some Bible translations call the expanse "firmament" while others use the word "expanse". This is because the Hebrew word ra·qi′a‛, translated “expanse,” means to stretch out or spread out or expand.

The Genesis account says that God did it, but it does not say how. In whatever way the described separation occurred, it would look as though the ‘waters above’ had been pushed up from the earth. And birds could later be said to fly in “the expanse of the heavens,” as stated at Genesis 1:20.

Day 3 - Dry land appears and vegetation forms.

Shouldn't plants come before animals? Whose definition of plant or animal are we using? Is an amoeba considered an animal? Should this stage happen after the larger animals appear? Nowhere in the account for this day does it contradict what you're saying. We've had the earth covered in water, dry land is now appearing and primitive life begins.

By the close of this third creative period, land has formed and plants have been created. The diffused light would have become quite strong by then, ample for the process of photosynthesis so vital to green plants. Incidentally, the account here does not mention every “kind” of plant that came on the scene. Microscopic organisms, water plants and others are not specifically named, but likely were created on this “day.”

Day 4 - Day and night begins

Previously, on the first “day,” the expression “Let light come to be” was used. The Hebrew word there used for “light” is ’ohr, meaning light in a general sense. But on the fourth “day,” the Hebrew word changes to ma·’ohr′, which means the source of the light. Rotherham, in a footnote on “Luminaries” in the Emphasised Bible, says: “In ver. 3, ’ôr [’ohr], light diffused.” Then he goes on to show that the Hebrew word ma·’ohr′ in verse 14 means something “affording light.” On the first “day” diffused light evidently penetrated the swaddling bands, but the sources of that light could not have been seen by an earthly observer because of the cloud layers still enveloping the earth. Now, on this fourth “day,” things apparently changed.

An atmosphere initially rich in carbon dioxide may have caused an earth-wide hot climate. But the lush growth of vegetation during the third and fourth creative periods would absorb some of this heat-retaining blanket of carbon dioxide. The vegetation, in turn, would release oxygen—a requirement for animal life.

Now, had there been an earthly observer, he would be able to discern the sun, moon and stars, which would “serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years.” (Genesis 1:14) The moon would indicate the passing of lunar months, and the sun the passing of solar years. The seasons that now “came to be” on this fourth “day” would no doubt have been much milder than they became later on.—Genesis 1:15; 8:20-22.

Day 5 - Sea life and birds

Sea life and then flying creatures. This would also embrace the forms of sea and air life, such as the sea monsters, whose fossil remains scientists have found in recent times.

Day 6 - Mammals, man

Thus on the sixth “day,” land animals characterized as wild and domestic appeared. The final day ended with the creation of man.

How long were these 6 days? Many consider the word “day” used in Genesis chapter 1 to mean 24 hours. However, in Genesis 1:5 God himself is said to divide day into a smaller period of time, calling just the light portion “day.” In Genesis 2:4 all the creative periods are called one “day”.

The Hebrew word yohm, translated “day,” can mean different lengths of time. Among the meanings possible, William Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies includes the following: “A day; it is frequently put for time in general, or for a long time; a whole period under consideration . . . Day is also put for a particular season or time when any extraordinary event happens.” This last sentence appears to fit the creative “days,” for certainly they were periods when extraordinary events were described as happening. It also allows for periods much longer than 24 hours.

Genesis chapter 1 uses the expressions “evening” and “morning” relative to the creative periods. Does this not indicate that they were 24 hours long? Not necessarily. In some places people often refer to a man’s lifetime as his “day.” They speak of “my father’s day” or “in Shakespeare’s day.” They may divide up that lifetime “day,” saying “in the morning [or dawn] of his life” or “in the evening [or twilight] of his life.” So ‘evening and morning’ in Genesis chapter 1 does not limit the meaning to a literal 24 hours.

When we say "back in the day" we're not referring to one specific day.

“Day” as used in the Bible can include summer and winter, the passing of seasons. (Zechariah 14:8) “The day of harvest” involves many days. (Compare Proverbs 25:13 and Genesis 30:14.) A thousand years are likened to a day. (Psalm 90:4; 2 Peter 3:8, 10) “Judgment Day” covers many years. (Matthew 10:15; 11:22-24) It would seem reasonable that the “days” of Genesis could likewise have embraced long periods of time—millenniums.

3D Master referred to a second creation account in Chapter 2 of Genesis.
Chapter 2 of Genesis apparently adds some details. However, it is not, as some have concluded, another account of creation in conflict with that of chapter 1. It just takes up at a point in the third “day,” after dry land appeared but before land plants were created, adding details that were pertinent to the arrival of humans—Adam the living soul, his garden home, Eden, and the woman Eve, his wife.—Genesis 2:5-9, 15-18, 21, 22.

The factual order of events in Genesis matches what science tells us. The account lists 10 major stages in this order: (1) a beginning; (2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water; (3) light; (4) an expanse or atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6) land plants; (7) sun, moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning; (8) sea monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame beasts, mammals; (10) man. Science agrees that these stages occurred in this general order.

 

Zounds! I can see the future! Proof, from earlier in the thread:

And now you see the prophecy has come to pass! Worship me, you limited mortal creatures, and I may deign to offer you more glimpses into tomorrow...

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

Yup, Babylon 5 and Galactica do this well. Farscape is also a science fiction series that is clearly open to "higher powers and forces" active in the universe as well.

 

Isn't that what science does all the time? Taking the facts and then re-interpret the conclusions based on those facts? Hasn't science changed our point of view over and over again as new light becomes apparent?

 

That's right: you start with facts, and then you reach a conclusion (or modify a pre-existing one). What you're doing is starting with a conclusion, then trying to hammer the 'facts' (I suggest you do further research into evolutionary history) into a specific ideological narrative (and one which, as the above exercise demonstrated, is spectacularly ill-fitting); something which has always been perilous at best (recall the 'scientific' racial theories of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries for a similar exercise in beginning with an ideological assumption and then massaging the actual data to fit it). It is the reverse of a scientific methodology; it is revisionist apologetics.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

I was asked to present evidence on how the Bible shows things in a scientifically accurate way. I did that. I presented several facts and yet the one we're all sticking on was one is the creation account.

The facts as laid out in Genesis:
The account lists 10 major stages in this order: (1) a beginning; (2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water; (3) light; (4) an expanse or atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6) land plants; (7) sun, moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning; (8) sea monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame beasts, mammals; (10) man. Science agrees that these stages occurred in this general order.

Which of the points in this order is different than how science presents it?

Meanwhile, what was the rest of the world teaching about the origin of life and the universe at that time?

Why is the way I understand the Bible the wrong way to understand the Bible?

 

Alright, very briefly: many of the stages in your list are based on an entirely arbitrary viewpoint, and one which lacks internal coherency to boot (since you insist on an earthly perspective when the only entity around--God--would surely have a far broader perspective, as humans are not created until later). Your distinction of 'atmosphere' is likewise arbitrary; Venus has an atmosphere, and it resembles your 'pre-light' notion of Earth (and there was always light; the only thing that changed was penetration). Life appeared long before dry land; heck, life began long before there was 'light', since photosynthesis is a later development. The seas were full of life--animal life, some of which is still with us today--long before land plants appeared. In fact, there's some evidence to suggest that there might have been terrestial, or at least amphibious (not amphibians) creatures before the continents developed plant life, although that's not yet conclusive. Flying creatures are preceded, not followed, by terrestial animals, whether wingless anthropods in the case of insects, tetrapods for flying reptiles, and of course dinosaurs for birds. And there can't possibly be domestic animals before humans; that's definitional.

Of course, none of that even addresses the preposterous degree to which a mythic story is being stretched in order to fit historical and biological facts, to the point of being essentially unrecognizable in its transmuted form, with terminology apparently dependant on shifting to dodge rebuttals.

EDIT:

Because you're looking for truth where there is none, and entirely missing the point in the process. These myths exists to provide meaning to a pre-scientific people, to comfort them with the belief that an unexplainable (to them) world is comprehensible with the correct insight, and to reinforce their own culture mores (note all the hierarchy in that story!). It's accurary is irrelevant (to a believer).

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

No, you were not asked to do that. You took it upon yourself to do that. People said the bible is scientifically inaccurate, that only by after the fact taking what the bible said as metaphor and then rewriting their meanings in your head could you come at anything meaningful. You said, "No, the Bible is scientifically accurate." I showed you how the bible is completely scientifically INaccurate. You then went to do the metaphor explanation for the things I showed to be scientifically inaccurate - the one thing you claimed earlier wasn't necessary as the bible was scientifically accurate according to you. As such, you were wrong, Trent, me and the rest were right.

Seriously, you go on about how ridiculous all the other creation myths are, but give me a minute and I'll even turn the elephant on top of the turtle into a scientifically accurate depiction.

Minute over: The elephant is of course a metaphor for gravity. Strong, powerful and dependent, the Earth is captured in the gravity warp of itself and the sun. Gravity in turn, for a part disappears into subspace - sub, is below - and thus makes gravity lose some of its power in the normal 3D universe, essentially "slowing" it. The turtle is slow, it is below, both supporting and diminishing the Elephant's/gravity's efforts. So the turtle is the metaphor for subspace.

Understand yet what we mean? The above, of course, is utterly ridiculous, so is rewriting the Bible's verses in a similar matter.