Literal Genesis 1:3

[Jorge]

A general observation, it's instructive that the YEC literalists go silent when one asks for a literal verse-by-verse reading of the Genesis stories.

Speaking for myself, I "go silent" when I have realized that I am speaking at extremely prejudiced, closed minds. Think about it, it's a waste of time. It's like trying to explain the merits of free-market capitalism to a rabid Marxist.

I mean, isn't that the ONLY reason they reject Deep Time and History?

K54

Not even wrong!

Jorge

[HMS_Beagle]

Speaking for myself, I "go silent" when I have realized that I am speaking at extremely prejudiced, closed minds.

Jorge

Actually you "go silent" when scientifically knowledgeable posters ask you questions about your nutty YEC claims that you can't answer. Like what caused the Barringer Meteor Crater. Or why are there a dozen independent methods for C14 dating calibration that all agree to a high degree of consistency over 50K years. But we understand your ego forces you to make an excuse, any lame excuse, to try and save face. Your miniscule scientific understanding sure doesn't help.

[Wally]

By the way, I presume you are aware that you cannot take Genesis - or any other Book in the Bible - in isolation from the others.

Jorge

On the contrary.

Othere than the redactor"s (probably Ezra)finished version of the Pentautac, no "book" of the Bible was composed with any expectaion that it would be part of a larger whole.

This is why there is a substatial difference between an "Apologist" and a Biblical historian.

[klaus54]

Speaking for myself, I "go silent" when I have realized that I am speaking at extremely prejudiced, closed minds. Think about it, it's a waste of time. It's like trying to explain the merits of free-market capitalism to a rabid Marxist.

Not even wrong!

Jorge

Cop-out plus insult.

So you admit tacitly that you cannot answer?

K54

P.S. So you reject Deep Time/Deep History for non-Scriptural reasons?

I don't think so!

[Truthseeker]

By now I've read the Bible cover to cover several times. Even so, I am still puzzled why YECs reject Deep Time. Jorge, is there a website somewhere that explains in detail why we must reject Deep Time?

[klaus54]

By now I've read the Bible cover to cover several times. Even so, I am still puzzled why YECs reject Deep Time. Jorge, is there a website somewhere that explains in detail why we must reject Deep Time?

Good point. So have I.

If YECs can't give a plain, simple, straightforward, unambiguous, direct reading of something as essential as "Elohim said, 'Let there be light'", then how can they claim a plain, simple, straightforward, unambiguous, direct reading of the Genesis stories?

Waiting for Jorge or some other YEC to reply with other than circular reasoning, like "Mr. Anderson" did. A plain reading is plain because it's plain.

K54

[Kbertsche]

Good point. So have I.

If YECs can't give a plain, simple, straightforward, unambiguous, direct reading of something as essential as "Elohim said, 'Let there be light'", then how can they claim a plain, simple, straightforward, unambiguous, direct reading of the Genesis stories?

Waiting for Jorge or some other YEC to reply with other than circular reasoning, like "Mr. Anderson" did. A plain reading is plain because it's plain.

K54

Of course, if you really wanted to know the answer (rather than wanting to engage YECs in debate), you could look at the notes in Henry Morris' "Defenders' Study Bible" or could look at a YEC-recommended commentary on Genesis 1. Unfortunately, I don't know what Genesis commentaries the YECs would recommend. Maybe Keil & Delitzsch? (They seemed to hold to a global flood, but I don't know their views on the age of the earth. They may be too scholarly for most YECs, though.)

[klaus54]

Yes, KB -- it's supposed to plain, straightforward, etc. You know, "simple-even-to-a-child".

Water --> Wine = Unambiguous, plain, simple, etc.

'Let there by light", not so much.

For the fifth or sixth time, I'm trying to get the Genesis absolute literalists to at least admit to interpreting,

Then, and only then, can we move on to discussing natural scientific evidence for "historical science" without them sticking fingers in their ears and crying "la la la la la...".

After that we can move onto the literal reading of "evening" and "morning" on rotating Earth.

Why is a YEC so cock-sure that his/her reading trumps science when they can't articulate the meaning of a literal narrative without circularity?

K54

[Kbertsche]

Yes, KB -- it's supposed to plain, straightforward, etc. You know, "simple-even-to-a-child".

Water --> Wine = Unambiguous, plain, simple, etc.

'Let there by light", not so much.

For the fifth or sixth time, I'm trying to get the Genesis absolute literalists to at least admit to interpreting,

Then, and only then, can we move on to discussing natural scientific evidence for "historical science" without them sticking fingers in their ears and crying "la la la la la...".

After that we can move onto the literal reading of "evening" and "morning" on rotating Earth.

Why is a YEC so cock-sure that his/her reading trumps science when they can't articulate the meaning of a literal narrative without circularity?

K54

Good luck getting the YECs to admit to interpreting Scripture. Henry Morris made the claim years ago that he does not interpret Scripture, he simply reads it and believes what it says. In general, YECs are blind to the fact that they are reading the text with a modern mindset and interpreting it anachronistically.

[seer]

In general, YECs are blind to the fact that they are reading the text with a modern mindset and interpreting it anachronistically.

How does that follow? Whether one believes that a literal understanding is contrary to Science or not, in what sense is a literal reading "interpreting it anachronistically" or with a "modern mindset?" Do you really believe that a Henry Morris doesn't understand the back ground of the Hebrew culture of that time? I know he is degreed in Engineering but from what I remember his study bible was rather well researched when it came to the culture and language of the time.

[klaus54]

Good luck getting the YECs to admit to interpreting Scripture. Henry Morris made the claim years ago that he does not interpret Scripture, he simply reads it and believes what it says. In general, YECs are blind to the fact that they are reading the text with a modern mindset and interpreting it anachronistically.

I know that "interpretation" is a naughty word for YECs, and getting them to explain why it is would be groovy.

To show my frustration, I'm going to sound like Bill Clinton here. What does "what it says" mean???

Oy vey...

K54

[klaus54]

How does that follow? Whether one believes that a literal understanding is contrary to Science or not, in what sense is a literal reading "interpreting it anachronistically" or with a "modern mindset?" Do you really believe that a Henry Morris doesn't understand the back ground of the Hebrew culture of that time? I know he is degreed in Engineering but from what I remember his study bible was rather well researched when it came to the culture and language of the time.

So, Seer -- are you ready to explain your plain, simple, straightforward, clear, direct, unambiguous "reading"?

Yapping about Henry Morris' expertise in Hebrew and Civil Engineering is not the point. The "reading" of the Genesis stories is. And if you believe the ANE and the modern civilized scientific world have the same understanding of Earth Science and cosmology, all I can say is "Hoo, boy".

K54

[klaus54]

This thread reminds me of a shopper at a luxury car dealer asking the price of a vehicle. The salesman responds "If you have to ask, you can't afford it."

Here I'm asking for the plain, simple, straightforward, direct, literal meaning of "Let there be light", and the only answer I got was (paraphrased), "If you have to ask, you won't understand anyway."

K54

[seer]

So, Seer -- are you ready to explain your plain, simple, straightforward, clear, direct, unambiguous "reading"?

No idiot... I'm trying to find out why Kbertsche thinks YECs are misreading the texts - based on what? Why is their understanding anachronistic.


http://www.worldwithoutend.info/star...genesis-01.htm

[klaus54]

No idiot... I'm trying to find out why Kbertsche thinks YECs are misreading the texts - based on what? Why is their understanding anachronistic.


http://www.worldwithoutend.info/star...genesis-01.htm

Are you a YEC literalist? If so, can you explain (oops! That would mean interpretation) of Ge 1:3?

Oh, and an ANE "literal" reading of the first Genesis story would come up with a flat eretz (else evening and morning would not be global markers of days) and a solid dome (raqia) separating waters above from water below.

That's what he means, Idiot!

Now what's YOUR plain, simple, straightforward, direct, non-anachronistic, literal reading of Ge 1:3?

Highlighting added for you benefit.

Oh, and thanks for creating the opening for a new adjective before "reading".

K54

P.S. So is your argument-by-weblink the explanation I've been looking for? Is it unambiguous in that it's obvious to all YECs?

You know I can play that game, too?