Biblical evidence for OEC/evolution?

[Assyrian]

Even in the modern era, we use the terms "sunrise" and "sunset" with great liberality. Is there any indication that the authors of the scriptures took these phrases to be literal? Now as far as a 6-day creation goes, I would think they did have a reason to believe that it was 6 literal days:

(Exo 20:9-11) Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

Why were they to work 6 days and rest on the 7th?:

(Exo 20:12) For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

The 6-day creation is cited as the reason that Israel was to observe 6 literal days with a 7th of rest. What do you suppose Moses thought when he was told this?

I don't suppose. I know what he said about creation and God's 'days'.
Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God.
You return man to dust and say, "Return, O children of man!"
For a thousand years in Your eyes are as a day, yesterday, when it passes, and as a watch in the night. Psalm 90:2-4

You really misunderstand the difficulty people had giving up geocentrism. They saw no more reason to give up the apparent literal meaning of the Word of God than you do. They saw the sun rise and go down, the bible said that it did. Who were these ungodly scientists to tell bible scholars how to interpret God's word?

Are you moving right now? Technically, yes, but for all practical purposes of discussion, no. We can look at such passages that might seem to suggest a geocentric earth when read literally, but we can also easily see how this could be figurative as well. What is not so easily seen is where all of these millions of years fit in to the Biblical record since Adam. Do you have an opinion on where such a tremendous gap might be found? Like sometime between Adam and Noah or between Adam and Abraham, etc.?

There are loads of unexpected gaps in scripture. Eve thought she had given birth to the Messiah. The Jews expected the Messiah to come as a conqueror first time around. The early church expected Christ to return in their generation. We also have the issue of God's perspective being different from ours.

But If your bible tells you the sun rises,when in fact it doesn't, or that the foundations of the earth do not move, when they spin around every day, that is much more difficult to reconcile.

While Galileo and Copernicus could observe the phenomenon directly, as it was happening, evolution cannot be viewed in the same manner at all. I see a substantial difference.

Actually, all they had was inference. The movements of the planets were better explained by them orbiting the sun, but the geocentricists could still explain the movement with epicycles. Galileo's telescope showed the moon was round and that Jupiter had moons, but that did not mean the earth moved around the sun.

It was another 3 centuries after Copernicus died and his work published before we had any direct evidence that the earth moved from Foucault's pendulum (1851).

If you're going to appeal to consistency in order to make your case, then you should also reject the notion of resurrection... That is of course, unless you have some scientific evidence to support it? Now I'm sure you won't do that, but perhaps you see my point. We're both well aware that a line must be drawn; the issue is where.

Rubbish.

Science has never shown Jesus didn't rise form the dead.

My point is not that he's mentioned four times specifically in Genesis 11 in the LXX; the point is the fact that he's mentioned at all. The Hebrew text doesn't include his name in that list, period (only in Genesis 5).

I'm not suggesting that it was Luke who incorporated the "error" at all. I said scribal error, not author error. In fact, the earliest Greek manuscripts (P75 in particular) don't include the second mention of Cainan. Now there's much debate over that particular issue, so make of that what you will.

You may be right, I don't have access to the manuscripts. Though it would require not only a scribal error, but the but the other passage being 'fixed' to fit the error.

(Luk 3:23) And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

The phrase "as was supposed" is a reference to Jesus' relationship with Joseph as it was perceived by many. We of course know that Jehovah is Jesus' true father. This really has nothing to do with the remaining genealogy.

The 'supposedly' is attached to the only verb in the whole genealogy. Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, of Heli, of Matthat, of Levi...

It doesn't go on to say Joseph was really the son of Heli...

Are you suggesting that Adam himself didn't literally live 800 additional years after Seth was born?

I don't think Adam was real at all. His name means 'man' or 'mankind'.

I don't think you're taking in to account the situation that Paul was in when he said this. Both the Pharisees and Saducees were united in their desire to see him put away for good. Paul managed to turn them against each other in this incident by referencing the resurrection. Paul was indeed a Pharisee:

(Phi 3:5,6) Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

But he didn't put any stock in that stuff:

(Phi 3:7) But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.

You left out Phil 3:4 though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more

If being a Pharisee was wrong, if their theology was heretical, then Paul shouldn't have claimed to be one in Jerusalem, even if it was to stir up trouble. In Philippians he is saying he left behind his own man made righteousness for the sake of gaining Christ, not that his Pharisee training in OT studies was wrong.

Blessings Assyrian

[grmorton]

Well, Glenn, it would appear that any fruitful discussion (if there was any in the first place) has been thoroughly exhausted. Carry on. Like I said, I'd look in to the chronology issue and double-check my figures. Other than that, I don't have anything else to add.

When you proclaimed that you were better than Augustine, more knowledgeable than rabbis, and superior to Jesus in knowledge of the pharisee's ability to interpret, all hope of meaningful conversation disappeared. As I said at that time, how does one discuss things with someone who knows more than God's son?

Good luck, I will not be back to this thread to check things as I prefer to stay in the Natural science forum because of time constraints.

[FlimFlamboyant]

I don't suppose. I know what he said about creation and God's 'days'.
Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God.
You return man to dust and say, "Return, O children of man!"
For a thousand years in Your eyes are as a day, yesterday, when it passes, and as a watch in the night. Psalm 90:2-4

I don't see how language descriptive of the everlasting, timeless nature of God is being directly connected to the 6 days of the creation, which aren't specifically mentioned in this verse. Besides, the "day-age" theory has its own set of problems.

The 6 days with a 7th of sabbath that the Lord commanded Israel to observe was intended to directly reflect the creation timetable. Let's assume for the moment that these 6 days were indeed very long periods of time. By every Biblical account, these periods (including the seventh) would be required to be equal in duration. Assuming a creation age of 4.5 billion years, this gives us 4.5 billion / 7, which is roughly 640 million years for each day of the creation account. Let us also assume that man's creation wasn't considered to be complete until the end of the 6th day. That gives us 640 million years that God would be resting on the seventh day. That would mean God would be at rest at this very moment, and not only that, but assuming 5 million years for the age of man, that would mean he has 635 million years of rest to go! This notion just doesn't jive with scripture:

(Exo 34:10) And he said, Behold, I make a covenant: before all thy people I will do marvels, such as have not been done in all the earth, nor in any nation: and all the people among which thou art shall see the work of the LORD: for it is a terrible thing that I will do with thee.

(Phi 1:6) Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:

(... and countless others)

God is a pretty busy guy for someone who is supposed to be at rest.

There are loads of unexpected gaps in scripture. Eve thought she had given birth to the Messiah. The Jews expected the Messiah to come as a conqueror first time around. The early church expected Christ to return in their generation. We also have the issue of God's perspective being different from ours.

What does this have to do with pointing out where you think these millions of years of gaps are in the genealogies of the scriptures? Can you at least give me a range? If you can't, that's fine; it would just be nice to have so I can look at a specific area more closely.

But If your bible tells you the sun rises,when in fact it doesn't, or that the foundations of the earth do not move, when they spin around every day, that is much more difficult to reconcile.

My weather man tells me the sun rises and sets every day. How do I reconcile that?

Rubbish.

Science has never shown Jesus didn't rise form the dead.

Tell that to the many skeptics out there.

The 'supposedly' is attached to the only verb in the whole genealogy. Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, of Heli, of Matthat, of Levi...

Right, because literally speaking, Jesus was NOT the son of Joseph and Heli and Matthat, etc. It's Jesus' supposed connection to the genealogy, not Joseph's supposed connection to Heli and so on.

I don't think Adam was real at all. His name means 'man' or 'mankind'.

That explains a lot.

You left out Phil 3:4 though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more

If being a Pharisee was wrong, if their theology was heretical, then Paul shouldn't have claimed to be one in Jerusalem, even if it was to stir up trouble.

Being a sinner wasn't such a great thing, either, yet Paul was "the chief of sinners" (1 Tim 1:15).

In Philippians he is saying he left behind his own man made righteousness for the sake of gaining Christ, not that his Pharisee training in OT studies was wrong.

That is true. Strange that the Pharisees' great training didn't include an inkling of understanding of the prophecies concerning their own Messiah. You see, here's the problem. Glenn is asking me to accept the words of these rabbis without showing one iota of scripture that supports their position. I'm sure you don't make a habit of just taking someone's word for it because they seem to be smart, do you? Yet this is what I'm being asked to do. As far as Christ's opinion of the Pharisees, I don't think he has to say any more than this....

(Mat 15:14) Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

... to lead me to the conclusion that they are fallible men, every bit as prone to error as I am.

[Assyrian]

I don't see how language descriptive of the everlasting, timeless nature of God is being directly connected to the 6 days of the creation, which aren't specifically mentioned in this verse.

You will find the reference to creation 2 verses before it. The verse in between talks about man being made of dust and returning to dust. The next two verses talk figuratively about evenings and mornings. The whole section is steeped in the creation account in Genesis.

And Moses does more than say God is timeless, a idea that only YECs seem to be stuck on. It does not talk of his timelessness, it talks of his days, how much time seems just like a day.

Besides, the "day-age" theory has its own set of problems.

The 6 days with a 7th of sabbath that the Lord commanded Israel to observe was intended to directly reflect the creation timetable. Let's assume for the moment that these 6 days were indeed very long periods of time. By every Biblical account, these periods (including the seventh) would be required to be equal in duration. Assuming a creation age of 4.5 billion years, this gives us 4.5 billion / 7, which is roughly 640 million years for each day of the creation account. Let us also assume that man's creation wasn't considered to be complete until the end of the 6th day. That gives us 640 million years that God would be resting on the seventh day. That would mean God would be at rest at this very moment, and not only that, but assuming 5 million years for the age of man, that would mean he has 635 million years of rest to go! This notion just doesn't jive with scripture:

(Exo 34:10) And he said, Behold, I make a covenant: before all thy people I will do marvels, such as have not been done in all the earth, nor in any nation: and all the people among which thou art shall see the work of the LORD: for it is a terrible thing that I will do with thee.

(Phi 1:6) Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:

(... and countless others)

God is a pretty busy guy for someone who is supposed to be at rest.

Read Hebrews.

God is still at rest and you are invited to join him.

I don't go in for your idea that the history of the universe has to be divided into 7 equal ages. Ages have left the literal 24 hour day equal in length to every other 24 hour day, they don't have to be '640 million years' each, but they are long ages. I hope to spend a very long time to come in the Lord's rest.

What does this have to do with pointing out where you think these millions of years of gaps are in the genealogies of the scriptures? Can you at least give me a range? If you can't, that's fine; it would just be nice to have so I can look at a specific area more closely.

Can you give me any idea of the size of gap there is in Isaiah 61:1&2? Between The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, because the LORD has anointed me to bring good news to the poor; he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound; to proclaim the year of the LORD's favor,
and...
and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all who mourn;
Jesus quoted the first bit an stopped. How long do you think the gap is?

[quote]My weather man tells me the sun rises and sets every day. How do I reconcile that?[quote]
Your weatherman knows he is using a scientifically inaccurate figure of speech. He does not mean it literally.

When people in the bible use it did they think it was inaccurate? Did their listeners take it literally? Did Christians in the 15th century have any reason to think it was not mean literally. Now if they were able to get past that massive contradiction between science and the apparent literal meaning of scripture, I think YECs should be able to deal with a couple of metaphorical passages that mention six days.

Tell that to the many skeptics out there.

Happy to, but the ones with any scientific knowledge already know. Only YECs think science disproves the resurrection.

Right, because literally speaking, Jesus was NOT the son of Joseph and Heli and Matthat, etc. It's Jesus' supposed connection to the genealogy, not Joseph's supposed connection to Heli and so on.

It is literally true that that was what people supposed. But what they supposed was not literally true.

That explains a lot.

It's the snake business really. Jesus didn't actually step on one.

Being a sinner wasn't such a great thing, either, yet Paul was "the chief of sinners" (1 Tim 1:15).

I think his point was that he was no longer formost in that rank, or if he was he shouldn't have told people 'be imitators of me...' He did however still claim to be a Pharisee.

That is true. Strange that the Pharisees' great training didn't include an inkling of understanding of the prophecies concerning their own Messiah.

And Christian have such a great track record in understanding the Lord's second coming?

You see, here's the problem. Glenn is asking me to accept the words of these rabbis without showing one iota of scripture that supports their position. I'm sure you don't make a habit of just taking someone's word for it because they seem to be smart, do you? Yet this is what I'm being asked to do. As far as Christ's opinion of the Pharisees, I don't think he has to say any more than this....

(Mat 15:14) Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

... to lead me to the conclusion that they are fallible men, every bit as prone to error as I am.

You cannot take one part of what Jesus said and ignore the rest. In their understanding of scripture they 'sat in Moses seat'. It was their heart and their actions that made them blind leaders, their hypocrisy greed and lack of compassion.

Blessings Assyrian

[FlimFlamboyant]

You will find the reference to creation 2 verses before it. The verse in between talks about man being made of dust and returning to dust. The next two verses talk figuratively about evenings and mornings. The whole section is steeped in the creation account in Genesis.

There's a whole lot more talk about the iniquities of man and God's wrath in that passage than there is about the creation.

(Psa 90:1) <A Prayer of Moses the man of God.> Lord, thou hast been our dwelling place in all generations. Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.

The part that is underlined is the extent of the creation discussion in this passage. The mountains and the forming of the earth are simply used as a frame of reference for God's "from everlasting to everlasting" nature.

(Psa 90:3) Thou turnest man to destruction; and sayest, Return, ye children of men. For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

Then Moses likens the men that God destroys to grass (having absolutely nothing to do with the creation account at all):

(Psa 90:5,6) Thou carriest them away as with a flood; they are as a sleep: in the morning they are like grass which groweth up. In the morning it flourisheth, and groweth up; in the evening it is cut down, and withereth.

The men are here one day, and gone the next; just like that. This process may seem like a long time to us, but with God "a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday". That's the extent of the point that Moses is making here.

And Moses does more than say God is timeless, a idea that only YECs seem to be stuck on. It does not talk of his timelessness, it talks of his days, how much time seems just like a day.

Of course he does.

Read Hebrews.

I have. I have also read Isaiah, which at several points declares that the Lord has yet to enter in to his rest.

(Isa 18:4) For so the LORD said unto me, I will take my rest, and I will consider in my dwelling place like a clear heat upon herbs, and like a cloud of dew in the heat of harvest.

(Isa 25:10) For in this mountain shall the hand of the LORD rest, and Moab shall be trodden down under him, even as straw is trodden down for the dunghill.

"This mountain" being the mountain of Zion (Isa 24:23). End-time prophecy is in the scope of both of these passages, so it is evident that the Lord has resumed work on something that he will one day rest from.

Now I realise that the seventh day is referenced in Hebrews:

(Heb 4:4) For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.

Yet this appears to be merely a similitude; the writer of Hebrews is comparing the rest that the Lord's people will experience with that of which the Lord experienced when he was finished with the creation. He ceased from his work, just as his people will (v10).

I don't go in for your idea that the history of the universe has to be divided into 7 equal ages.

If that is the case, then I guess I fail to see why a correlation was made between the 7 days of creation to the sabbath at all.

Can you give me any idea of the size of gap there is in Isaiah 61:1&2? Between The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, because the LORD has anointed me to bring good news to the poor; he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound; to proclaim the year of the LORD's favor,
and...
and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all who mourn;
Jesus quoted the first bit an stopped. How long do you think the gap is?

You're changing the issue again. I asked where it is in the genealogies that you believe these millions of years of gaps are. If you don't have an opinion on that, then why not just tell me? If that is the case, then I'll just forget about it.

When people in the bible use it did they think it was inaccurate? Did their listeners take it literally?

There is no indication either way.

Did Christians in the 15th century have any reason to think it was not mean literally. Now if they were able to get past that massive contradiction between science and the apparent literal meaning of scripture, I think YECs should be able to deal with a couple of metaphorical passages that mention six days.

I understand that you believe that this is exactly the same thing. Perhaps on the surface, it would appear to be that way. However, the appearance of a thing doesn't necessarily speak to the truth of a thing. In the end, you're appealing to uncertainty to make your case. The whole reason I created this thread is because of Glenn's statement in another thread that "the Bible teaches evolution". To then attempt to support that notion by arguing that "the Bible doesn't teach YEC, either" really doesn't go anywhere toward defending the initial claim.

Happy to, but the ones with any scientific knowledge already know. Only YECs think science disproves the resurrection.

I don't believe it disproves the resurrection at all.

And Christian have such a great track record in understanding the Lord's second coming?

What? Did we miss it?

You cannot take one part of what Jesus said and ignore the rest. In their understanding of scripture they 'sat in Moses seat'.

Ok, let's stop there for a moment. Do you know what that means? Do you understand what it is that Jesus told them they should "observe and do"?

[Assyrian]

There's a whole lot more talk about the iniquities of man and God's wrath in that passage than there is about the creation.

(Psa 90:1) <A Prayer of Moses the man of God.> Lord, thou hast been our dwelling place in all generations. Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.

The part that is underlined is the extent of the creation discussion in this passage. The mountains and the forming of the earth are simply used as a frame of reference for God's "from everlasting to everlasting" nature.

(Psa 90:3) Thou turnest man to destruction; and sayest, Return, ye children of men. For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

Then Moses likens the men that God destroys to grass (having absolutely nothing to do with the creation account at all):

(Psa 90:5,6) Thou carriest them away as with a flood; they are as a sleep: in the morning they are like grass which groweth up. In the morning it flourisheth, and groweth up; in the evening it is cut down, and withereth.

The men are here one day, and gone the next; just like that. This process may seem like a long time to us, but with God "a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday". That's the extent of the point that Moses is making here.

You do realise there is an awful lot about man's iniquities and God's wrath in the opening chapters of Genesis too?

Moses' frame of reference when discussing God's eternity is the creation. So comments on how long a day is in God's eyes are in the context of the creation.

Not only does Moses set the psalm in the context of creation and God's days but he uses motifs from Genesis to discuss man's frailty and God's judgement. We are returned to dust, we are like grass that grows up in the morning and withers by the evening.

I find it fascinating that Moses seems to parallel the formation of the mountains and way before that the creation of the earth, with 'from eternity to eternity'. It's as though he understood what we now call deep time. He did not seem to regard the creation as recent, but so far back it was comparable to God's eternity.

Of course he does.

Now you need to realise that the same Moses who wrote about God's days being so unlike ours, and wrote it in the context of a creation Psalm, also gave us the passages in Exodus about God creating the world in six 'days'. Moses did not think of God's days as the literal 24 hour days we experience.

I have. I have also read Isaiah, which at several points declares that the Lord has yet to enter in to his rest.

(Isa 18:4) For so the LORD said unto me, I will take my rest, and I will consider in my dwelling place like a clear heat upon herbs, and like a cloud of dew in the heat of harvest.

(Isa 25:10) For in this mountain shall the hand of the LORD rest, and Moab shall be trodden down under him, even as straw is trodden down for the dunghill.

"This mountain" being the mountain of Zion (Isa 24:23). End-time prophecy is in the scope of both of these passages, so it is evident that the Lord has resumed work on something that he will one day rest from.

Now I realise that the seventh day is referenced in Hebrews:

(Heb 4:4) For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.

Yet this appears to be merely a similitude; the writer of Hebrews is comparing the rest that the Lord's people will experience with that of which the Lord experienced when he was finished with the creation. He ceased from his work, just as his people will (v10).

I am not sure a prophecy of the hand of the Lord resting on mount Zion in the millennium tells us God is not resting now.

Isaiah 18:4 uses a different word for rest and modern versions seem to translate it: For thus the LORD said to me: "I will quietly look from my dwelling like clear heat in sunshine, like a cloud of dew in the heat of harvest."

But the word rest can be used in different contexts. Hebrews is talking about God's original seventh day rest, not where he will rest his hand or how he will look quietly at something.

It is God's seventh day rest that we are told in Hebrews is still going on and that we are supposed to enter. Simply resting on the Sabbath did not qualify. the Jews in the OT did that but they were still told that had to enter his rest.

If that is the case, then I guess I fail to see why a correlation was made between the 7 days of creation to the sabbath at all.

Simply because we humans need a rest once a week, and we need to keep being reminded to turn our minds to God. The Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath.

You're changing the issue again. I asked where it is in the genealogies that you believe these millions of years of gaps are. If you don't have an opinion on that, then why not just tell me? If that is the case, then I'll just forget about it.

I don't know my way round the genealogies, what I was trying to tell you is that there are a lot of unexpected gaps in scripture. There is no reason to think the genealogies are any different

There is no indication either way.

Given the way YECs latch onto a literal use of yom and hold on for dear life, there is every reason to think the literalists will take sun rise, sun set, or the sun standing still very literally. Look how people reacted to Jesus saying they should eat his flesh. Of course they took it literally.

I understand that you believe that this is exactly the same thing. Perhaps on the surface, it would appear to be that way. However, the appearance of a thing doesn't necessarily speak to the truth of a thing. In the end, you're appealing to uncertainty to make your case. The whole reason I created this thread is because of Glenn's statement in another thread that "the Bible teaches evolution". To then attempt to support that notion by arguing that "the Bible doesn't teach YEC, either" really doesn't go anywhere toward defending the initial claim.

What I still don't understand is how you can reject the scientific evidence for evolution because of a literalistic interpretation of a couple of passages, but ignore the literal meaning of all the passages that talk about the sun moving around the earth.

But Glenn and I have have shown you a number of passages that talk about God using natural methods to create life, you have seen the same word genealogy being used to describe what went on in Gen 1, and you haven't come up with any suggestion of how the earth could produce all the different species other than through evolution.

Here's another verse for you. Eccles 3:18 I know that God is testing us to show us that we are merely animals.

I don't believe it disproves the resurrection at all.

Good that's progress then. So lets not tell TEs they should reject the resurrection for the sake of consistency then

What? Did we miss it?

Impossible to, we keep predicting it every ten or fifteen years.

Ok, let's stop there for a moment. Do you know what that means? Do you understand what it is that Jesus told them they should "observe and do"?

They were still under the old covenant, I think Jesus was talking about the Pharisees understanding to law of Moses and their interpretation of his books. The seat of Moses seem to indicate some sort of authority in the area of Moses writings and the OT law.

Blessings Assyrian

[grmorton]

I told this list that I would think about the Olam article. Flimflamboyant did find an error in my article in that I beleived, from Strong’s, that Joshua 24:2 had a double olam and that is in error. But, it has nothing to do with my argument for an old earth from the use of olam.

I let Flimflam, flimflam the argument and mis-represent my position, something I should have paid closer attention to, but it has been a while since I had visited the Olam argument. I will now address Flim’s points.

I had written in on my web page and Flim quoted it (without making it clear where it was coming from):

Clearly this word (olam) has the connotation of eternity or eternal, which is why I said it has a connotation of the infinite. http://home.entouch.net/dmd/olam.htm

Flim then writes in post #7 of this thread:

Clearly in many contexts, it does. However:

(Gen 6:4) There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old (olam olam), men of renown.

So let me get this straight... These children were born to women, then became mighty men that were infinitely older than their own mothers? It is clear that you can't assume a single definition of this word and apply it to every context, as you have in this article. Not only that but, "olam olam" can be applied not only to the oldness of a thing, but the longetivity of a thing as well; something else that you failed to take into account in your article.

Now, Flim, is a great flimflam artist and he italicizes the word ‘became’ as if it is somehow referring to a future time. But, since Genesis 6:4 is referrring to a time long past, and the tense of the verbs is such that it is all referring to times past. I can say Charles Darwin became a writer without saying that he is going to become a writer. I wasn’t paying close enough attention to flim’s flams.

He then quotes me:

Now, when faced with a word like olam, in a context like this:

Gen 49:26 The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting[olam] hills kjv

What is one to think?

To which the flim meister replies.

I think those hills are going to be there a very long time, that's what.

And of course, he totally ignores that if he choses to use this grammatical construction with this meaning, it can then also be applied to God. In Genesis 21:33 and Isaiah 40:28 are the only two passages using ‘everlasting God’. By the flimflam artists logic, to be consistent he must then claim that God is going to be there a long time, but hasn’t been there a long time in the past.

Tsk Tsk, Flim, this is selectivity in your use of argumentation.

He then claims that it is all a matter of ‘context’ but I bet that the context is determined solely by him, the SIBI.

He then tries the argument:

(Jer 2:20) For of old (olam) time I have broken thy yoke, and burst thy bands; and thou saidst, I will not transgress; when upon every high hill and under every green tree thou wanderest, playing the harlot.

Go broke the yoke of Israel and in response they said that they would not transgress... before Israel even existed? Clearly "olam" in this verse is not a millions/billions of years period of time at all. In fact, this appears to be a reference to their bondage in Egypt. We're talking less than 1,000 years here!!

I would suggest that this is evidence that the yoke time was more than 1000 years ago. Afterall, no one has found any historical records in Egypt pertaining to the Exodus. Nor has anyone found any evidence of a recent exodus of people wandering around the Sinai. I have often wondered if it isn’t much further back in time—before prehistory. There was a big civilization there at the time.

Flimflam then writes:

(Jer 28:8) The prophets that have been before me and before thee of old (olam) prophesied both against many countries, and against great kingdoms, of war, and of evil, and of pestilence.

Just how old are these prophets?

Well, that is precisely the thing that is at issue here. You can’t assume your solution is the only solution.

Then in Post 19, Flimflam tries again to push the Genesis 6:4 argument.

Their children became (future tense) men of "old" (olam).

Once again, The SIBI is spouting false things. Became, according to my dictionary became is PAST TENSE, not future tense as you so erroneously claim. There goes that argument. The words, ‘will become’ are future tense. Thus you are quite wrong.

So, given that you can’t even tell a verb tense in English, why should we believe that you are the fantastical interpretor you think you are?

Now to the part where I will accept Flim’s argument. I had written:

So, you are inconsistent. If applied to the future, Olam olam means almost an eternity--certainly many millions of years, but if applied to the past, olam olam means no more than 6000 years? Why?

No, it is you who are inconsistent. You quoted Genesis 49:26 which contains only one "olam", and tried to draw a direct comparison to passages that use two. This is not a valid comparison.

I will accept that there is only one olam here. But, when one olam is applied to God’s eternity past and one to God’s eternity future, we seem to have no problem assuming that a single olam means a very very long time. Like:

Psalm 106:48 Blessed be the LORD God of Israel from everlasting to everlasting[olam olam]

One olam for the past eternity and one for the future. Or does Flim think God is only from –4000 to +4000 years?

Flim then writes:

Once again, "olam" (men of OLD) is not the same thing as "olam olam" (everlasting to everlasting). This is a fallacious comparison.

One olam for everlasting past and one for everlasting future. That would seem to support a case that ANY olam means longer than 4000 years.

Flim then writes

BINGO! Now you're getting it! However, my use of this verse is completely legitimate in response to your article, which uses Genesis 49:26 as a proof-text for an old earth. Both Jeremiah 2:20 and Genesis 49:26 contain only one olam (see below). If it represents a mere 1,000 years in Jer 2:20, then what makes you think that it can't also represent a "short" period of time in Gen 49:26?

He then thinks he has won the argument with this:

Then your use of a single olam to argue FOR your case is an entirely equivalent waste of time. I'm glad you agree. You might want to update your article, assuming you can find an "olam olam" that actually refers to the earth this time.

Of course he hasn’t. Psalm 106:48 Blessed be the LORD God of Israel from everlasting to everlasting[olam olam]

One olam for eternity past and one for eternity future. Thus, a single olam does represent an extremely long time.

[FlimFlamboyant]

You do realise there is an awful lot about man's iniquities and God's wrath in the opening chapters of Genesis too?

How you can find any similarity in the overall context of Psalm 90 to early Genesis is absolutely fascinating to me.

Not only does Moses set the psalm in the context of creation and God's days but he uses motifs from Genesis to discuss man's frailty and God's judgement. We are returned to dust, we are like grass that grows up in the morning and withers by the evening.

Our existance is likened to the coming and going of grass, therefore Psalm 90 is clearly a creation-oriented passage! I see. I guess Psalm 37 (v2) is also a creation-oriented passage, then.

I find it fascinating that Moses seems to parallel the formation of the mountains and way before that the creation of the earth, with 'from eternity to eternity'. It's as though he understood what we now call deep time. He did not seem to regard the creation as recent, but so far back it was comparable to God's eternity.

Are you seriously suggesting that "from everlasting to everlasting" is being applied to the earth here?

Now you need to realise that the same Moses who wrote about God's days being so unlike ours, and wrote it in the context of a creation Psalm

I really don't understand how you can read the whole thing and come away with the idea that this is specifically a creation Psalm. Suit yourself.

I am not sure a prophecy of the hand of the Lord resting on mount Zion in the millennium tells us God is not resting now.

Perhaps not, but there are a plethora of passages that indicate that the Lord has busied himself with other things since he ceased from work on the creation.

But the word rest can be used in different contexts. Hebrews is talking about God's original seventh day rest, not where he will rest his hand or how he will look quietly at something.

The question is whether or not God has done any work since the creation. The sabbath is all about ceasing from work of any kind. Are you prepared to say that God has not performed any work since he finished the creation?

(Exo 20:10) But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

"Nor thy son". Is it valid to say that the Son of God came to earth, performed countless miracles, preached to millions, suffered and died on a cross, and yet performed no work during that time?

What I still don't understand is how you can reject the scientific evidence for evolution because of a literalistic interpretation of a couple of passages, but ignore the literal meaning of all the passages that talk about the sun moving around the earth.

Perhaps the sun does move around the earth . Really though, who cares; it's all relative. The main reason I reject the "evidence" for evolution is two-fold. First of all, I generally trust men about as far as I can throw them. Why? Because they've proven time and again to be untrustworthy, and that's including myself. That's why I lean toward a literalistic view of the scriptures as much as possible, because I don't entirely trust even myself to interpret things correctly in the case that they are not literal. Once we begin to say "well, science says this, so this scripture must be a metaphor", we have started down the slippery slope of interpreting the Bible based upon our own experiences. Given the fact that every man's experience is different, we wind up being "tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine".

But Glenn and I have have shown you a number of passages that talk about God using natural methods to create life

What natural methods does the Bible say were used to initially create life? And please don't say "trees bearing fruit" again, because that's the result of creation, not the beginning.

you have seen the same word genealogy being used to describe what went on in Gen 1

One more time; where does the Bible specifically state that the animals we see today are the result of millions/billions of years of evolution? The earth was commanded to bring them forth, and it did; it does not say how. That is the extent of the information that the Bible provides on the issue.

and you haven't come up with any suggestion of how the earth could produce all the different species other than through evolution.

Is it really necessary for me to come up with a legitimate scientific explanation for the process that God used to create this world in order to justify my belief in a literal reading of the Genesis account? I have not pledged my allegiance to science; I therefore have no real motivation to do so.

Here's another verse for you. Eccles 3:18 I know that God is testing us to show us that we are merely animals.

Alright, this takes the cake. Now I know you had to have rushed this one via means of a quick search and never gave yourself the chance to understand the context of that verse. I'm not going to comment on this until you've had a chance to think about whether or not you really want to offer this as evidence that man descended from animals.

Impossible to, we keep predicting it every ten or fifteen years.

Predicting it is not the same as missing it.

They were still under the old covenant, I think Jesus was talking about the Pharisees understanding to law of Moses and their interpretation of his books. The seat of Moses seem to indicate some sort of authority in the area of Moses writings and the OT law.

The law specifically, yes. The commandment was to observe and do the things the bid them to observe. This clearly implies the law of commandments specifically. I think Glenn is stretching that very, very far when he tries to include their opinions on matters that the scriptures don't directly address; such as whether or not the Torah was a blueprint for the creation.

[FlimFlamboyant]

So let me get this straight... These children were born to women, then became mighty men that were infinitely older than their own mothers? It is clear that you can't assume a single definition of this word and apply it to every context, as you have in this article. Not only that but, "olam olam" can be applied not only to the oldness of a thing, but the longetivity of a thing as well; something else that you failed to take into account in your article.

Now, Flim, is a great flimflam artist and he italicizes the word ‘became’ as if it is somehow referring to a future time.

Once again, you have made much out of your mis-representation of my position. I emphasized the word "became" because it clearly points out the fact that they didn't become these "men of old" until after they were born. I in no way suggested that this has yet to occur. Yet clarifying my points when you clearly misunderstood them is "weaseling", isn't it, Glenn? Go on, you know you want to say it.

But, since Genesis 6:4 is referrring to a time long past

Proven by what? A single olam? How can you make a dogmatic statement like that when the definition of the very word you are basing that claim on is at the very heart of this debate?

And of course, he totally ignores that if he choses to use this grammatical construction with this meaning, it can then also be applied to God. In Genesis 21:33 and Isaiah 40:28 are the only two passages using ‘everlasting God’. By the flimflam artists logic, to be consistent he must then claim that God is going to be there a long time, but hasn’t been there a long time in the past.

This is clearly false. As I have stated before, a single "olam" refers to an indefinate, let me repeat myself once again for the Glenns out there, INDEFINITE period of time. It just so happens to be ~1,000 years in Jeremiah 2:20 (I'll address that verse again in a moment). It also just so happens to be forever in the future in the context of, say, Genesis 9:16. What you are proposing is that a single olam must mean a period of "great length" which is defined by you as being at least... what, exactly? Millions of years? Hundreds of thousands? Do you really have any idea?

(Jer 2:20) For of old (olam) time I have broken thy yoke, and burst thy bands; and thou saidst, I will not transgress; when upon every high hill and under every green tree thou wanderest, playing the harlot.

Go broke the yoke of Israel and in response they said that they would not transgress... before Israel even existed? Clearly "olam" in this verse is not a millions/billions of years period of time at all. In fact, this appears to be a reference to their bondage in Egypt. We're talking less than 1,000 years here!!

I would suggest that this is evidence that the yoke time was more than 1000 years ago. Afterall, no one has found any historical records in Egypt pertaining to the Exodus. Nor has anyone found any evidence of a recent exodus of people wandering around the Sinai. I have often wondered if it isn’t much further back in time—before prehistory. There was a big civilization there at the time.

Just to clarify, I never claimed that the yoke was broken less than 1,000 years ago relative to our time. It was, however, clearly less than 1,000 years relative to Jeremiah's time. Why do I say that?:

(1Ki 6:1) And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the LORD.

The space of time between Israel's exodus and Solomon's reign was about 480 years, according to this verse. Are you now going to claim that Solomon's reign was "before prehistory"? That's about all you can do unless you're willing to concede that Jeremiah was indeed using "olam" to reference a period of time that was roughly 1000 years, as he lived near the end of the time of the kings of Israel.

No, it is you who are inconsistent. You quoted Genesis 49:26 which contains only one "olam", and tried to draw a direct comparison to passages that use two. This is not a valid comparison.

I will accept that there is only one olam here. But, when one olam is applied to God’s eternity past and one to God’s eternity future, we seem to have no problem assuming that a single olam means a very very long time. Like:

Psalm 106:48 Blessed be the LORD God of Israel from everlasting to everlasting[olam olam]

No, a single olam does not mean "a very very long time" in Psalm 106:48; it means FOREVER in that particular verse, and this is where your argument breaks down. Your following argument is just you shooting yourself in the foot:

One olam for the past eternity and one for the future. Or does Flim think God is only from –4000 to +4000 years?

Here's something you have never explained in this particular discussion; How do you go from "everlasting" to "a very, very long time"? Is God "from a very long time to a very long time"? Let's look at the applications for "olam" that you have used so far. You've applied it to the everlasting nature of God. You've also applied it to the earth, which I assume you believe to be ~4.5 billion years old; minute compared to everlasting. You have also applied it to mankind, which is purported to be only a few million years old.

So which is it, Glenn? How long is long enough to be "olam"? If you're going to try to use the consistency argument against me, then you're condemning your own argument in the process. I could just as easily rephrase what you said:

"One olam for the past eternity and one for the future. Or does Glenn think God is only from -4.5 billion to +4.5 billion years?"

Or if you want to use a popular approximate age of man:

"One olam for the past eternity and one for the future. Or does Glenn think God is only from -5 million to +5 million years?"

Psalm 106:48 Blessed be the LORD God of Israel from everlasting to everlasting[olam olam]

One olam for eternity past and one for eternity future. Thus, a single olam does represent an extremely long time.

There you go again. If you're going to be logically consistent, then that last sentence must read "Thus, a single olam does represent eternity", not "an extremely long time", which is nothing by comparison. You're twisting it around to mean something else, all the while telling me that I need to be consistent. You are a hoot, that's for sure. Every indication, even by your own account shows that "olam" represents an indefinate period of time that must then be defined by the context in which it appears.

[grmorton]

Once again, you have made much out of your mis-representation of my position. I emphasized the word "became" because it clearly points out the fact that they didn't become these "men of old" until after they were born. I in no way suggested that this has yet to occur. Yet clarifying my points when you clearly misunderstood them is "weaseling", isn't it, Glenn? Go on, you know you want to say it.

I bolded the part. But yet you later claimed that 'became' is FUTURE tense, something so laughable and silly and now you back away without simply and honestly admitting that you are and were WRONG.

Proven by what? A single olam? How can you make a dogmatic statement like that when the definition of the very word you are basing that claim on is at the very heart of this debate?

Proven by the comparison of one olam with the eternity of God, or are you saying from 'everlasting to everlasting' only means 'from really a short time ago to a short time hence'? You are not paying attention to the use of olam to express God's eternity.

This is clearly false. As I have stated before, a single "olam" refers to an indefinate, let me repeat myself once again for the Glenns out there, INDEFINITE period of time. It just so happens to be ~1,000 years in Jeremiah 2:20 (I'll address that verse again in a moment).

Indefinite, yes, short time, no. Olam does not mean 'some time' it means 'long time'. Both are indefinite, but olam is long. And Brown-Drivers-Briggs agrees with me.

Olam-"long duration, antiquity, futurity, for ever, ever, everlasting, evermore, perpetual, old, ancient"

All definitions are indefinite lengths of time, but all are very long, not short. You just want to believe what you believe and so are now claiming to be a better definer of Hebrew words than the editors of Brown-Driver-Briggs.

It also just so happens to be forever in the future in the context of, say, Genesis 9:16. What you are proposing is that a single olam must mean a period of "great length" which is defined by you as being at least... what, exactly? Millions of years? Hundreds of thousands? Do you really have any idea?

Why do you rule it out? There are verses which call God the everlasting (olam-single olam) God. Are you saying God only lasts 1000 years? What a tiny tiny insignificant God you have.

Just to clarify, I never claimed that the yoke was broken less than 1,000 years ago relative to our time. It was, however, clearly less than 1,000 years relative to Jeremiah's time. Why do I say that?:

(1Ki 6:1) And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the LORD.

The space of time between Israel's exodus and Solomon's reign was about 480 years, according to this verse. Are you now going to claim that Solomon's reign was "before prehistory"? That's about all you can do unless you're willing to concede that Jeremiah was indeed using "olam" to reference a period of time that was roughly 1000 years, as he lived near the end of the time of the kings of Israel.

But once again, that is linked up by the genealogies which require that men not have their children until an AVERAGE age of 74 years old. Even you claimed that seemed a little long for men to wait to have their children. So, what we have here is that you isolate an issue by ignoring all other aspects of the problem in order to solve the left side of the problem, and then when the right side becomes a problem, you then ignore the left side and come up with an entirely incompatible explanation for the right side. Then if someone points out the inconsistency, you spring back to defend the left ignoring what you have said whild defending the right. Back and forth you YECs go manning the barricades with incoherent and inconsistent explanations all around.

No, a single olam does not mean "a very very long time" in Psalm 106:48; it means FOREVER in that particular verse, and this is where your argument breaks down. Your following argument is just you shooting yourself in the foot:

OK, I will accept that it means forever, because even to my mind a million years is forever. And olam is applied to the hills. the everlasting hills--so you are now saying what I have been saying. The earth must be old because it has everlasting hills. (this is another example of the shifting sands of your explanatory filter. Above you say it is indefinite and short, but when pushed, you now say it means forever, after this you will claim it is short again. Whatever suits your purpose and need at the moment is what you are going to say next.

And that is what disgusts me about YECism. It is a game of saying whatever is necessary rather than saying what is true.

Here's something you have never explained in this particular discussion; How do you go from "everlasting" to "a very, very long time"? Is God "from a very long time to a very long time"? Let's look at the applications for "olam" that you have used so far. You've applied it to the everlasting nature of God. You've also applied it to the earth, which I assume you believe to be ~4.5 billion years old; minute compared to everlasting. You have also applied it to mankind, which is purported to be only a few million years old.

I will follow Brown-Driver-Briggs. To refresh your short term memory:

"long duration, antiquity, futurity, for ever, ever, everlasting, evermore, perpetual, old, ancient"

It doesn't say "short duration, yesterday afternoon, tomorrow, a day and a half, short term, only for an hour, ending next week, young and new"

It says exactly the opposite. You want this word to mean whatever suits your need at the moment in the argumentation.

So which is it, Glenn? How long is long enough to be "olam"? If you're going to try to use the consistency argument against me, then you're condemning your own argument in the process. I could just as easily rephrase what you said:

Much longer than 4000 years, or otherwise you diminish God's eternity.

"One olam for the past eternity and one for the future. Or does Glenn think God is only from -4.5 billion to +4.5 billion years?"

Actually the universe was born 13-14 billion years ago and that was when time was also born. God was not born when the earth was born. God existed before time was made, so it isn't a matter merely of measuring his duration via time.

Or if you want to use a popular approximate age of man:

"One olam for the past eternity and one for the future. Or does Glenn think God is only from -5 million to +5 million years?"

Well, both of the examples you provide are far more acceptable than +/- 4000 years. I would take the 4.5 billion except that I think God was around a bit longer ago than that.

There you go again. If you're going to be logically consistent, then that last sentence must read "Thus, a single olam does represent eternity", not "an extremely long time", which is nothing by comparison. You're twisting it around to mean something else, all the while telling me that I need to be consistent.

Look at this. This from the guy who has said it means forever, and it means 1000 years all in the very same post. As I said, I go with BDB. To refresh your short term memory (which seems problematic)

"long duration, antiquity, futurity, for ever, ever, everlasting, evermore, perpetual, old, ancient"

Thus, I can be consistent by staying with these defining words.

You are a hoot, that's for sure. Every indication, even by your own account shows that "olam" represents an indefinate period of time that must then be defined by the context in which it appears.

BZZZZZT. Wrong. It is not up for you to be the definer of Hebrew words. We have already gone round about this how you set yourself up to be the judge of all things--you judge the value of rabbi statements, you juddge the value of St. Augustine, and you judge the statements of Jesus. If they disagree with what you beleive, then they are all judged to be wrong. Now you are setting yourself up as the greatest expert on Hebrew definitions.

Not bad for a day in the life of the SIBI.

[FlimFlamboyant]

I bolded the part. But yet you later claimed that 'became' is FUTURE tense, something so laughable and silly and now you back away without simply and honestly admitting that you are and were WRONG.

This means nothing unless you can point to me where it is that I said that.

Indefinite, yes, short time, no.

Define "short time". Is 1,000 years too short to qualify for "a long time"? Who gets to decide that?

Olam does not mean 'some time' it means 'long time'. Both are indefinite, but olam is long. And Brown-Drivers-Briggs agrees with me.

Does Brown-Drivers-Briggs by chance define what a "long time" is? Your defence is so incredibly ambiguous I can't believe that even you take it seriously.

Olam-"long duration, antiquity, futurity, for ever, ever, everlasting, evermore, perpetual, old, ancient"

A car is considered an antique when it's 25 years old. Big deal. For something to qualify as being "ancient", it need only be a couple of thousand years old; I see references to "ancient" dynasties all of the time where they are said to be 3000-4000 years old, even by secular sources. I don't understand how it is that you think you have a case with this.

(1Ki 6:1) And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the LORD.

The space of time between Israel's exodus and Solomon's reign was about 480 years, according to this verse. Are you now going to claim that Solomon's reign was "before prehistory"?

...

But once again, that is linked up by the genealogies which require that men not have their children until an AVERAGE age of 74 years old.

The 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1 is linked to the genealogies? Did you even read what it said? It doesn't say "X generations", it says 480 YEARS elapsed from the exodus to Solomon's rule. Is the author of 1 Kings mistaken here? Did he write this while oblivious to the gaps that you insist there must be?

OK, I will accept that it means forever, because even to my mind a million years is forever.

Your personal perceptions of time are meaningless to this discussion. Forever is infinitely longer than a million years. You simply cannot legitmately equate the two for the purpose of your argument, as they are not even close to being the same thing.

And olam is applied to the hills. the everlasting hills--so you are now saying what I have been saying. The earth must be old because it has everlasting hills. (this is another example of the shifting sands of your explanatory filter. Above you say it is indefinite and short, but when pushed, you now say it means forever, after this you will claim it is short again.

This simply shows that once again you have no interest in understanding my position at all. This is the last time I will say this. I will use my big purple crayon this time so it is perfectly clear.

The word "olam" represents an indefinite, long period of time. Just how long it is depends entirely upon the context in which it appears. It can mean anything from eternity, to 1,000 years (Jer 2:20).

If you don't personally consider 1,000 years to be a "long time", that is not my problem.

Well, both of the examples you provide are far more acceptable than +/- 4000 years. I would take the 4.5 billion except that I think God was around a bit longer ago than that.

This isn't about what is "more acceptable", as that too is ambiguous, being 100% dependent on your personal opinion and not the facts. This is about right and wrong (I await your next SIBI accusation with baited breath). You cannot use the "you're saying that God is from -4000 years to +4000 years" argument without condemning your own position, and I think you know it. I could use the very same argument in response ("you're saying that God is from -5 million years to +5 million years"), but it's a stupid argument in either case, so I won't. Whether it's 4000 or 5 million, they're both essentially nothing in comparison to eternity.

[Assyrian]

How you can find any similarity in the overall context of Psalm 90 to early Genesis is absolutely fascinating to me.

The before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world, is a bit of a give away. It also helps that YECs keep questioning how 'made of dust' or 'day' or 'evening' and 'morning' could possible be figurative, when Moses took these terms right after talking about the creation and used them metaphorically in the Psalm. He must have known!

Our existance is likened to the coming and going of grass, therefore Psalm 90 is clearly a creation-oriented passage! I see. I guess Psalm 37 (v2) is also a creation-oriented passage, then.

Does David mention God creation the world or forming the mountains, does he mention 'dust' or 'days' or 'evening' or 'morning' or even 'flood'?

Are you seriously suggesting that "from everlasting to everlasting" is being applied to the earth here?

Well Moses does use olam to decribe the everlasting hills and qedam the ancient mountains Deut 33:15. Jacob called the hills everlasting too in Genesis 49:26. Talking about before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world seems to give the context, an illustration of what he goes on to say from everlasting to everlasting you are God.

I really don't understand how you can read the whole thing and come away with the idea that this is specifically a creation Psalm. Suit yourself.

It's the before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world. It's not all about the creation. It describes God from the creation account and takes metaphors from Genesis to desribe the human condition and goes on to talk about how we should live. Let's say, it has as much to say about the creation as Moses' other creation references Exodus 20 & 31.

Perhaps not, but there are a plethora of passages that indicate that the Lord has busied himself with other things since he ceased from work on the creation.

The question is whether or not God has done any work since the creation. The sabbath is all about ceasing from work of any kind. Are you prepared to say that God has not performed any work since he finished the creation?

(Exo 20:10) But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

"Nor thy son". Is it valid to say that the Son of God came to earth, performed countless miracles, preached to millions, suffered and died on a cross, and yet performed no work during that time?

I agree totally, In fact God never stopped working. The universe is being upheld by the word of his power. Jesus knew his Father never stopped working, not on the Sabbath, not even on the very first Sabbath. John 5:17 But Jesus answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I am working." Which makes it kind of difficult to interpret God resting on the Seventh day too literally. Heb 4:4 For he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way: "And God rested on the seventh day from all his works." No God's rest is a very different kind of rest.

Perhaps the sun does move around the earth . Really though, who cares; it's all relative.

So is time.

The main reason I reject the "evidence" for evolution is two-fold. First of all, I generally trust men about as far as I can throw them. Why? Because they've proven time and again to be untrustworthy, and that's including myself. That's why I lean toward a literalistic view of the scriptures as much as possible, because I don't entirely trust even myself to interpret things correctly in the case that they are not literal. Once we begin to say "well, science says this, so this scripture must be a metaphor", we have started down the slippery slope of interpreting the Bible based upon our own experiences. Given the fact that every man's experience is different, we wind up being "tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine".

You sound like the guy who buried his talent in the ground because he knew his master was and angry man and was afraid of making a mistake. So why should it be worse to get it wrong by interpreting the literal metaphorically, than to misunderstand the metaphorical by interpreting it literally? Why are you afraid to do the one and not afraid of the other? Didn't Jesus spend three years trying to get the disciples to understand metaphors? What cause more problems, people interpreting the literal metaphorically, or by taking the metaphors literally?

Tell me, do you travel by car? go to the doctors? fly in planes? Do you believe the scientists when they tell you the world is round and rotates?

What natural methods does the Bible say were used to initially create life? And please don't say "trees bearing fruit" again, because that's the result of creation, not the beginning.

No he told the earth to produce life. It did.

Gen 1:11 And God said, "Let the earth cause to sprout vegetation...
Gen 1:12 The earth brought forth vegetation...
Gen 1:20 And God said, "Let the waters cause to swarm swarms of living creatures...
Gen 1:24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures...
Gen 1:24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures....

It doesn't mention self replication RNA, just that the earth producing life was God's idea.

One more time; where does the Bible specifically state that the animals we see today are the result of millions/billions of years of evolution? The earth was commanded to bring them forth, and it did; it does not say how. That is the extent of the information that the Bible provides on the issue.

The bible does not tell us the earth was created in six literal days, so it is bibliacal to say the earth producing life took however long it takes for the earth to do that. How long would that take? Oh almost an eternity...

Is it really necessary for me to come up with a legitimate scientific explanation for the process that God used to create this world in order to justify my belief in a literal reading of the Genesis account? I have not pledged my allegiance to science; I therefore have no real motivation to do so.

It is necesary for you to come up with an alternative naturalistic method, if the bible literally says God commanded the earth to produce life, and you reject the evolutionary explanation. Come up with an alternative.

Alright, this takes the cake. Now I know you had to have rushed this one via means of a quick search and never gave yourself the chance to understand the context of that verse. I'm not going to comment on this until you've had a chance to think about whether or not you really want to offer this as evidence that man descended from animals.

Ecclesiastes is one of my favourite books in the bible and I have uses this verse as my signature on other sites. Solomon says we are animals, not some totally seperate creation to the beasts.

Predicting it is not the same as missing it.

I'm saying we can't really 'miss' it, not if Christians keep predicting it every 5 years.

The law specifically, yes. The commandment was to observe and do the things the bid them to observe. This clearly implies the law of commandments specifically. I think Glenn is stretching that very, very far when he tries to include their opinions on matters that the scriptures don't directly address; such as whether or not the Torah was a blueprint for the creation.

The Torah is the five books of Moses. If the Pharisees had teaching authority on anything when they 'sat in the seat of Moses' it was understanding all about the Torah. You may not agree with everything they believed scripture teaches, but at least their understanding of scripture should be treated with respect.

Blessings Assyrian

[grmorton]

This means nothing unless you can point to me where it is that I said that.

This is what is so frustrating about your short-term memory problem that you have. In post 82 I had pointed out that in POST 19 you had said that became was future tense. Here is from post 82:

Then in Post 19, Flimflam tries again to push the Genesis 6:4 argument.

Immediately after this I quoted post 19 which, my short-term memory deficient friend, YOU WROTE!

Their children became (future tense) men of "old" (olam).

The problem is that you are so full of yourself and already have all the answers (in your own mind) that you don't even read or follow the actual argument. This is a problem when one becomes the SIBI, the Supremo Infallible Biblical Interpretor. You quit listening to others.

edited to add: this is just another example of you saying whatsoever you NEED to say at the moment in order to avoid the conclusion that you might be wrong. As I said earlier, this is what most disgusts me about YEC argumentation. It is highly AMORAL!

Define "short time". Is 1,000 years too short to qualify for "a long time"? Who gets to decide that?

I would say that the use with God defines it somewhat. REmember, that scripture defines scripture and when they use olam jehovah, as everlasting God, then hey, the word ought to take away some flavoring of the definition from that usage. But then, the SIBI won't care, because he is too busy thinking of what he has to say this moment to think about whether or not it is true.

Does Brown-Drivers-Briggs by chance define what a "long time" is? Your defence is so incredibly ambiguous I can't believe that even you take it seriously.

This from the guy who thinks that a word used to express God's eternity past is only 1000 years? Come on, talke about weak. Ok, your god is like Apollo, believed in for a few thousand years and then forgotten.

A car is considered an antique when it's 25 years old. Big deal.

Since the Hebrews didn't have cars, antique or otherwise, your analogy is stupid. Having lived in the UK, with at least a 2000 year history and now having lived in the P.R. China, which has a history of 4000 years, I now know how incredibly short is the American viewpoint when it comes to time. In the UK a friend of mine told me that the difference between Americans and Brits is that Americans think 100 years is a long time, but Brits think 100 miles is a long distance.

For something to qualify as being "ancient", it need only be a couple of thousand years old;

Glad you have crowned yourself the judge of all things. Might be a wee bit arrogant but you show a wee bit of promise when it comes to replacing God--your god at least.

I see references to "ancient" dynasties all of the time where they are said to be 3000-4000 years old, even by secular sources. I don't understand how it is that you think you have a case with this.

Because olam is used to describe the length of time God hasexisted, not of ancient dynasties. I don't know how many times I need say this. You seem to be a bit deaf as well has challenged with short term memory.

[quote[[i]
The 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1 is linked to the genealogies? Did you even read what it said? It doesn't say "X generations", it says 480 YEARS elapsed from the exodus to Solomon's rule. Is the author of 1 Kings mistaken here? Did he write this while oblivious to the gaps that you insist there must be?

Sigh, yes, I have read it and know it quite well. But after that you still have the genealogical problem of geezers giving birth to their first children. You don't seem to pay attention to anything anyone says, including me, Jesus, rabbis and St. Augustine.

Your personal perceptions of time are meaningless to this discussion.

It isn't my personal perception of time, unless you can show that the everlasting God lasts for a day and a half.

Forever is infinitely longer than a million years. You simply cannot legitmately equate the two for the purpose of your argument, as they are not even close to being the same thing.

But 13 billion years is much closer to infinity than 1000 years. Don't you agree?

This simply shows that once again you have no interest in understanding my position at all. This is the last time I will say this. I will use my big purple crayon this time so it is perfectly clear.

I understand your position quite well. It has zero nada, leeng, no merit whatsoever.

You know, in your opinion you are absolutely correct.

That says everything that one needs to know about you. As for me, before you try to throw that back at me, I changed from a YEC to a TE after several brushes with becoming an atheist (because of the YEC lunacy). I know exactly how wrong I can be and now look to see if I am wrong rather than looking for ways that I can be correct, which is what you do. By doing that, you deny yourself any opportunity to correct your erroneous beliefs.

The word "olam" represents an indefinite, long period of time. Just how long it is depends entirely upon the context in which it appears. It can mean anything from eternity, to 1,000 years (Jer 2:20).

In this context, you are trying to say that you are the judge of the context. Thus, once again, you are looking more to how you can be right rather than looking for the truth. Jesus is truth, I would remind you.

If you don't personally consider 1,000 years to be a "long time", that is not my problem.

Well it may be your problem. You are the one who thinks he doesn't have to listen to anyone other than the buzz in his own head. Jesus, St. Augustine, Rabbis, no one can change the unchangeable mind of the SIBI.

This isn't about what is "more acceptable", as that too is ambiguous, being 100% dependent on your personal opinion and not the facts.

Not my opinion but the opinion of many. I bet if you did a poll on how long God has been around, it is much longer than 1000 years. Yet that is what you hilariously claim olam refers to---1000 years. But the olam God (the everlasting God) surely has been around more than 1000 years. Would you agree? I ask this again. Wouldn't you agree that olam used as an adjective with God means God has been around more than 1000 years?

Of course you don't. Context won't allow it.

[quote]This is about right and wrong (I await your next SIBI accusation with baited breath). [quote]

I agree. When are you going to acknowledge your error about calling the word 'became' a verb in the future tense? That is truth but you deny it. You prefer the darkness rather than the light.

You cannot use the "you're saying that God is from -4000 years to +4000 years" argument without condemning your own position, and I think you know it. I could use the very same argument in response ("you're saying that God is from -5 million years to +5 million years"), but it's a stupid argument in either case, so I won't. Whether it's 4000 or 5 million, they're both essentially nothing in comparison to eternity.

Since time was created with the universe, and since prior to and after the unvierse, there is no time, I can darn well use 13 billion years +/- on both ends. Eternity, my friend, has no time and thus, time can only be measured to the beginning of the universe and no futher back. Thus, time past is not infinitly great. Time forward might be, but not time past. Thus one really cant use time in comparison to eternity in the past.

See St. Augustine on this issue. Oh I forgot, you dismiss him as if he is some ne'er do well theologian. And since I mentioned them, you dismissed them (theologians) as causeing more trouble than they are worth. But you are the SIBI (there is my next cut at you) SUPREMO INFALLIBLE BIBLICAL INTERPRETOR!!!!!! Legend in your own mind. Master of all your delusions of grandeur. The world's authority on nearly everything. The person who knows everything without studying or taking tests.

We all bow down to you SIBI, the most intelligent, and knowledgeable man in the entire universe. You are the corrector of Jesus, the scourge of Rabbis, the superior of St. Augustine, the all-knowing about Hebrew even to the surpassing of Brown-Driver-Briggs, and the definer of temporal duration for olam. Halleluyah! Halleluyah! we have a god in our midst. All knees will bow before him, the great and glorious SIBI

A legend IN YOUR OWN MIND. And a man whose opinion is that always correct, even if he is utterly wrong.

[FlimFlamboyant]

Well Moses does use olam to decribe the everlasting hills and qedam the ancient mountains Deut 33:15. Jacob called the hills everlasting too in Genesis 49:26. Talking about before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world seems to give the context, an illustration of what he goes on to say from everlasting to everlasting you are God.

Well, I'll just refer you to the whole "olam" discussion that I've had with Glenn, rather than re-hash it here.

Didn't Jesus spend three years trying to get the disciples to understand metaphors? What cause more problems, people interpreting the literal metaphorically, or by taking the metaphors literally?

Your last two questions could very well be a toss-up, as far as I'm concerned. As far as Jesus explaining metaphors goes, that was rather a special case.

(Luk 8:9-10) And his disciples asked him, saying, What might this parable be? And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.

The purpose of the parables was to convey his message in such a manner that the truth would be clouded to those who were not his intended recipients. Besides, nearly every parable is clearly labeled as such in the scriptures, anyway.

Tell me, do you travel by car? go to the doctors? fly in planes? Do you believe the scientists when they tell you the world is round and rotates?

I'm not sure what cars, doctors and planes have to do with this but yes, I believe the world is round and rotates. Why; does the Bible expressly deny it?

It is necesary for you to come up with an alternative naturalistic method, if the bible literally says God commanded the earth to produce life, and you reject the evolutionary explanation. Come up with an alternative.

I don't imagine you feel the need to come up with a naturalistic explanation for things such as the resurrection, do you? Personally, I don't need an alternate naturalistic explanation; I'm satisfied with what I have. If that isn't enough for others, there isn't a whole lot I can do about that.

Ecclesiastes is one of my favourite books in the bible and I have uses this verse as my signature on other sites. Solomon says we are animals, not some totally seperate creation to the beasts.

Hoo-boy, you are going to use it. Nevermind the fact that Genesis tells us that God specifically created man from the dust of the earth. Nevermind verses such as the following:

(1Co 15:39) All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

If it's not the same flesh, then I'm inclined to conclude that we're not beasts, or fish, or birds. We're men.

Let's look at this passage in Ecclesiastes 3 for a moment. First of all, one must note the perspective from which Solomon is writing; an almost purely humanistic perspective, occasionally contrasting it with a godly perspective. He is expressing the misery and vanity of a man who's hope rests in this world that is "under the sun"; a phrase which he uses with great liberality in this book. He was rich beyond our wildest dreams and indulged himself in every wordly pleasure. Ecclesiastes is a collection of his thoughts on what he "gained" from all of this; nothing.

(Ecc 3:11) He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.

Now if I wanted to abuse the context of Ecclesiastes 3 in a similar manner, I could use this verse to show that no scientist can find out the process by which God created the world. But I know better than that.

(Ecc 3:12,13) I know that there is no good in them, but for a man to rejoice, and to do good in his life. And also that every man should eat and drink, and enjoy the good of all his labour, it is the gift of God.

What else is there? What more is there for us to accomplish? And then it's gone, just like that, isn't it? "Vanity of vanities" indeed.

(Ecc 3:16) And moreover I saw under the sun the place of judgment, that wickedness was there; and the place of righteousness, that iniquity was there.

Wickedness all around. The world is a cesspool, even in places where righteousness is purported to be.

(Ecc 3:17) I said in mine heart, God shall judge the righteous and the wicked: for there is a time there for every purpose and for every work.

Here is the contrast; in the end, God will take care of it all. There's no justice to be found in this world, but with God, justice will be served.

(Ecc 3:18) I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.

Literally? No. Technically? Yes. Now I know you're just itching to jump all over this and ask "What?? Why is it not literal here? Don't you always want to read it literally?" The answer to that is no, not always, especially when the context makes it pretty clear that it's figurative terminology. There is a reason why Solomon is likening men to beasts, and that reason is in the very next verse:

(Ecc 3:19,20) For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity. All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.

Once again, Solomon expresses the vanity of the humanistic perspective. From that standpoint, no, there isn't much difference at all when it's all said and done. Both man and beast are of the dust of the earth; both die and fade away, so what's the point? Why do we bother? Yes, we're made out of the same stuff. Yes, we die and turn to dust just as the animal does. No, that does not necessarily mean we evolved from them. I can make two carvings from the same block of wood; that in no wise means that one carving evolved from the other. Solomon actually does make an important contrast between man and beast in the next verse:

(Ecc 3:21) Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?

The Torah is the five books of Moses. If the Pharisees had teaching authority on anything when they 'sat in the seat of Moses' it was understanding all about the Torah. You may not agree with everything they believed scripture teaches, but at least their understanding of scripture should be treated with respect.

Yeah, like I don't agree with what they believed about Jesus Christ. Thank God for that. No doubt they did have a good understanding of many things, but it cannot be denied that they had their blinders on when it came to a lot of issues. To therefore quote men who have rejected Jesus Christ and expect me to accept their word in the same manner as I do scripture just doesn't work for me. Their opinions are noted, but they have to pass the test.

[FlimFlamboyant]

This is what is so frustrating about your short-term memory problem that you have. In post 82 I had pointed out that in POST 19 you had said that became was future tense. Here is from post 82:

Quote: Originally posted by flimflam

Their children became (future tense) men of "old" (olam).

Future tense from who's perspective? Future relative to their birth, as the verse plainly states. "OH NO, HE'S WEASLING AGAIN, WHAAAA". Give it a rest, already. You misunderstood me. You just can't get over the fact that I have a young-earth perspective, so you run every word that I speak through your "ALL YECs ARE LYING, WEASELING CULT LEADERS" filter before you type your completely mis-guided response. This is the last time I will reply to you, as I don't have enough hours in the day to keep explaining myself when my position should already be clear.

Define "short time". Is 1,000 years too short to qualify for "a long time"? Who gets to decide that?

I would say that the use with God defines it somewhat. REmember, that scripture defines scripture and when they use olam jehovah, as everlasting God, then hey, the word ought to take away some flavoring of the definition from that usage.

This train of logic sounds good on the surface, but does it really work? Nearly anyone will tell you that automatically applying the very same definition of a word in every context is a really bad idea. In this case, you are assigning a single definition of the word "olam" to every occurance of it in the Bible because in some contexts it means "forever", as it most certainly does when speaking of God's everlasting nature. Let's try this same logic with another word and see if it works.

(Gen 7:1) And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous [tsaddiyq] before me in this generation.

(2Ch 12:6) Whereupon the princes of Israel and the king humbled themselves; and they said, The LORD is righteous [tsaddiyq].

Now unless you're willing to say that the righteousness of Noah is comparable to the righteousness of God, I would suggest that it is not always sound logic to take a single definition of a word in one context, and universally apply it to all other contexts in which it appears.

This from the guy who thinks that a word used to express God's eternity past is only 1000 years? Come on, talke about weak. Ok, your god is like Apollo, believed in for a few thousand years and then forgotten.

The fact that you keep bringing up this strawman just shows that you have nothing more to defend yourself with. I rest my case.

A car is considered an antique when it's 25 years old. Big deal.

Since the Hebrews didn't have cars, antique or otherwise, your analogy is stupid.

This is rich. You seriously need to read this post; especially #7:

7. Use the intellectual laziness card. For example, if someone says that ice is cold, recommend that he take graduate courses in chemistry and meteorology before jumping to stupid conclusions that display a complete ignorance of the complexity of ice.

The 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1 is linked to the genealogies? Did you even read what it said? It doesn't say "X generations", it says 480 YEARS elapsed from the exodus to Solomon's rule. Is the author of 1 Kings mistaken here? Did he write this while oblivious to the gaps that you insist there must be?

Sigh, yes, I have read it and know it quite well. But after that you still have the genealogical problem of geezers giving birth to their first children. You don't seem to pay attention to anything anyone says, including me, Jesus, rabbis and St. Augustine.

No Glenn, please address the question. Was the writer of 1 Kings mistaken in his figure of 480 years, or not? If not, please explain how this is so.

Forever is infinitely longer than a million years. You simply cannot legitmately equate the two for the purpose of your argument, as they are not even close to being the same thing.

But 13 billion years is much closer to infinity than 1000 years. Don't you agree?

There is really no reason for you to keep trying to push this logical fallacy. You cannot say "olam is used to tell us that God is ETERNAL, therefore, when it is used in reference to the hills, it means they are VERY OLD." Very old... eternal.... very old.... eternal. Call me crazy, but that doesn't look like the same thing to me; not even close. To put this in worldly terms so you'll understand it; essentially what you're doing is calling me stupid for comparing an electron to a planet, while at the same time, you're comparing a molecule to a planet. Sure, the molecule is billions of times larger than the electron, but the darn thing is still microscopic, isn't it? Such is the comparison between 1000/13 billion years with eternity.