Hi Oly..sorry.. I got caught up with some other threads and post limits for a few days.

QUESTIONS.. "To whom was God speaking?"

This was part of the creation narrative passed down to Moses, and I can only guess that God was speaking within his own Godhead.

It might also be a communication device which postulates what God might have said as part of that narrative...

The problem with working out 'to whom' God was speaking, is that we are not told. It may have been to created Angels? It is said to be the 'Royal we' meaning God himself not a plurality of beings.

QUESTION: "Would humankind being made in God’s image extend to human science creating an other universe?"

Oly..on that and some of your more scientific questions, I'm just not qualified to answer scientifically. I'm sure if you look up these things in creation science/answers in Genesis web sites they will have something to say about them.

As I said before, I focus on the resurrection of the Lord. Everything falls into place from that reference point.
cheers

Helllo Boazy,

"As I said before, I focus on the resurrection of the Lord. Everything falls into place from that reference point." - B

I posted another reminder on the altrenative thread before opening this one a bit back-to-front.

Here, I have been concentrating of meanings and interpretations of religious and secular texts, per topic. It would be a challenge to find anything on particle accelerators in Genesis, so we need to interpret. Maybe, in the next fifty years, humankind will be able to create the conditions of the Big Bang.

- What is the status of the ability - humanity vis-a-vis god?

Humans might create a Higgs Boson before year's end:

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/03/god-particle/achenbach-text

- By extension, what would the abiity to "Create" a universe in imply, based interpretation of the Bible other scriptures?

Presently, I am being pulled by the gravity of my own research, so my posts might tend to be brief.

Cheers,

Oly.

IamJoseph,

Still looking. There would be human art from the Neolithic perios:

[Online] http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/ht/02/afe/ht02afe.htm Accessed 23 June 2008

Climatic changes c. 8,000 BCE would mean that progressively cultivation replaced hunting & gathering.

Artifacts, earlier still.

"On July 5th [2005], British scientists announced that literally hundreds of human footprints, approximately one-third of them children, found in Central Mexico during 2003, have been conclusively dated to the very dawn of modern man. Silvia Gonzalez, a geoarchaeologist at Liverpool's John Moores University, in England, co-discovered the impressions in an abandoned quarry near the city of Puebla, sixty miles southeast of Mexico City. They are perfectly preserved as trace fossils in ash laid down by a nearby volcano, known as Cerro Toluquilla, during the ancient past. [....] Long before the Puebla footprints were found, Ancient American investigators wrote of Brazil's Pedra Furada site, which pre-dated mainstream notions of the continent's earliest human settlers by nearly twenty thousand years. More remarkable still, our fall, 1997 issue reported the find of another university-trained archaeologist, Dr. Virginia Steen-McIntyre, who unearthed unmistakable evidence for human habitation in Central Mexico going back a fantastic quarter-of-a-million years! These on-going discoveries are replacing out-dated paradigms, while validating the very premise of our magazine." [Based on: Ancient American magazine article (Issue # 64, Entitled: Mexico's 40,000-Year-Old Footprints Demolish "Land-Bridge" Theory by Frank Joseph

Cheers,

O.

Re. "literally hundreds of human footprints, approximately one-third of them children, found in Central Mexico during 2003, have been conclusively dated to the very dawn of modern man"

The only thing seperating moadern humans from all other life forms is not skeletal or biological imprints, which is common to all life forms: it is speech, and no other factor, which makes humans unique. So I would accept a single 'NAME' - even one dated 6001 years old. I see that as a reasonable criteria.

Foot prints, as with other lab deconstructions like colored beads and cave scratchings, do not vindicate themselves - even as these contradict factual populations and mental prowesss transitory footprints. Thus those foot prints were not of a speech endowed life form.

Have you ever wondered what benefit or reason did Genesis have in listing the 'NAMES', dob's and dod's of all those generations of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Ishmael - occupying so many pages, with what are clearly redundent info today - or is it just!? Archeology relies 99% on 'NAMES' - second by paleonthology [writing styles]; then by C14 relics. A 5000 year name never appears 500 years later. Speech did not evolve from gaveman grunts and coos - but suddenly and in an already advanced form - speech is an anomoly and mystery, defying Adaptation, which is time based.

NO NAMES = NO SPEECH = NO MODERN MAN.

IamJoseph,

Good post.

Art is indicative of representational thought, i.e., higher cognitions. When the Jesuits met the Black Foot indians in North America, the Indian clans could speak but had no written language.

"Written" language leading to Western path of history is said to have commenced from accounting systems developed in early city-states, like, Ur, around 4,000 BCE.

Because folks could write not say 6,001 BP, it doesn't follow they did not have languages and were incapable of representational thought. Artifacts suggets otherwise.

Chimps have been known to learn sign language and even teach the sign language to off-spring. "Lucy" Beatrice & Allen Gardener.

The Summarians have lists of pre-dynastic kings going back tens-of-thousands of years, but I have taken those lists to contain mythical names.

"Because folks could write not say 6,001 BP, it doesn't follow they did not have languages and were incapable of representational thought."

No writings does not respond to the issue: recollection of a name does not require any writ. The arabic writings, for example, occured relatively recently, circa 350 CE - but we have cross-nation evidence of Arabs prior to this time, and that there was an arabic language also. If it is posited that there was speech for many tens of 1000s of years ago, but that a name is only available inside the 6000 line and not before - it should be deemed unacceptable, and too co-incdental to be realistic. It becomes more unrealistic when population and mental prowess grads, or the lack thereof, are considered.

"Artifacts suggets otherwise. "

This inclines with my premise, and contradicts the notion of a name being missing while relics are mentioned. If an artifact denoting speech endowed humans is proposed, then why should a name not be accompanied? How about kings, wars, nations, folk songs - anything which is not confusing and subscribing only to a direct connection of speech?

What inter-nation or other evidences confirm those artifacts? What imprints connect that artifact with 200 or 500 year grads with respect to other such relics or events in that vicinity, or what similar evidences are seen in other parts of the planet?

IOW, speech did not occur in a vacuum, and cannot be evidenced solely by C14 datings of footprints alledgedly of modern humans, because such evidences, in the absence of surrounding and colliliary support, actually denies what it is seeking to affirm. It is similar to a religion cannot prove it's writing's veracity solely by offering parts of that religion's scripture as its proof; the same applies to alledged evidence of an artifact's descriptions and conclusions. An arm's length supporting evidence is required, and this is not seen.