Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Creation 6 day literal? Or Not

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by JohnnyP View Post
    I already discussed evolution but I can refrain henceforth if it's moved.
    I didn't put this under protology due to the exclusion of theistic evolutionists. Hence many wonderful Christians would be excluded from the debate.
    A happy family is but an earlier heaven.
    George Bernard Shaw

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
      Dear (some) Christians,
      The reason you struggle with the age of the earth, the age of the Universe and the evolution of life on earth which are all well established scientific FACTS is that you worship the book. That is IDOLATRY. Your ignorance is the wages of SIN. The Bible is a collection of books ABOUT God, not BY God.
      You totally misunderstand my position, as usual. Given that I've tried explaining other things before, to no avail, I'm not even going to attempt to correct the vast amount of wrong in your post.

      Have you ever thought to ask what inspiration is, as in God’s inspired word? It’s one man telling another man that he admires his prose and wishes he had written something just as beautiful. When enough lovely books are collected by book lovers and arguments break out about who has the loveliest book, the politicians finally come forward to sort out the mess and establish a formal order. This result is called The Bible. The Bible is a political document rather like the Constitution. Try not to get obsessed about it to the point that the world makes no sense to you.
      The Bible tells us what inspiration is. It's described as "God breathed", which would mean that it's the same as direct words from God. You so totally misunderstand my position, but I will offer one bit of clarification. The world does not make sense without the Bible. You also apparently know nothing of genre. The Bible is a collection of books from different genres, from historical narrative, to poetry, to Suzerain-Vassal(not sure I worded that correctly) type treaties. It is not a "political document".

      Psalm 18:30
      As for God, his way is perfect: The Lord’s word is flawless; he shields all who take refuge in him.

      Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

      2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

      If you cant understand the above, then there is absolutely nothing I can do to get through to you.

      @ Quantum Weirdness.
      First, only OEC and YEC are allowed in Applied Protology 201 without asking permission first. Second, God's rest that started on the Sabbath(hence the referral to a "Sabbath rest") being eternal does not make it logically follow that the seventh day itself was eternal.

      Originally posted by JohnnyP
      In my view, the command for animals to evolve into humans was completed and process started on the 6th day, but it doesn't require that the process is completed on that day, the process is still going on. Landscapes and life continue to change to this day.

      If you think of it as writing a computer program and then running it, to the programmer it is finished on that day, now it's time to see the results as it is running. Which may go on for additional days, weeks, months, years.
      But that isn't what the text allows for. It specifically says immediately after God commanded something that "and it was so" showing a completion. Then it was followed by the time frame for how long the period was "evening and morning X day". Did the wind and waves wait when Jesus commanded them to stop?

      Yes that's a literal reading. A non-literal reading draws the following comparisons to show that the Tree of Life rules light and life, the Tree of Knowledge rules darkness and death, both are signs of good and evil, both determine days and years of life and death. As well as stars, children of God, in this case, Adam and Eve.
      This is a non-literal reading with nothing to back it up. You need to pay attention to context in a passage, you did a good job showing onefour1's eisegesis to be faulty in another thread, why are you engaging in it here?

      Genesis 1:14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

      None of your replacements fulfill the majority, or even a few of the assigned functions. No marking of seasons, no marking of special occasions, no separating night from day. The only one is your rather strained mention of "light" and trying to equate it to "life".

      Here we see sun, moon, and stars. Where the sun (Tree of Life/life) conquers moon (Tree of Knowledge/death). As well as stars (children of God).
      This fails your own interpretation, as you equate death with darkness, and life with light. The tree of knowledge of good and evil could therefore not be a "lesser light". It only brought death and darkness.

      Etc. The term for "seasons" in Genesis 1:14 is also used for "feasts" which is...a time of eating to honor God. Which relates back to eating from the Tree of Life vs. Knowledge:
      You need to show why that meaning fits better. It doesn't given that again, most functions are still not being fulfilled, even if I do accept your rather bizarre interpretation.

      So that is my interpretation. As well as that creatures of Genesis 2 are not regular animals, but cherubim like those in Ezekiel -- likeness of men as Adam was, but also like beasts, fowl, cattle:
      There is absolutely no connection to do that. Those being in Ezekiel all had 4 faces, one eagle, one ox, one lion, and one human. Oh, and they aren't cherubim. What they are is not specified.

      All are humans, we're also graffed into Israel without requiring blood relations.
      Um, not quite. We are all in Adam, therefore we are all distantly related to Abraham. If any are not descended from Adam, then they wouldn't be truly human. Christ is the second Adam, and came to undo what the first one did. You also must understand that God made the law of the kinsman redeemer, and it is actually commonly portrayed throughout the Bible. I don't think it's part of God's nature to break His own rules and laws.

      1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.

      Seems if God knows there is future salvation for at least some of cursed creation then it seems He could still deem it very good, for sake of those saved.
      This makes no sense of the text, since God was giving us something we could understand from our time-bound perspective. For God to declare fallen creation as "very good" in that state would be a falsehood. Things are not "very good", which is why we need to be saved at all.

      Turning it around, if 6 days had periods of millions of years between them it wouldn't make sense that God would have man observe Sabbath once every millions of years. Rather, the model of a 7th day Sabbath would be conformed to human ability to observe it on a regular basis.
      Then why isn't this reflected in the Genesis text? God could very easily have had things written to reflect the state of affairs you try to claim, but He didn't. The consistent use of the waw consecutive shows temporal and sequential order.

      Oh, and you were wrong about one thing a while back. You said that parthenogenesis had no Biblical precedent to the birth of Jesus, this is wrong. It happened before and was prophesied by Isaiah.

      Isaiah 7:13-16
      New International Version (NIV)
      13 Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you[a] a sign: The virgin[b] will conceive and give birth to a son, and[c] will call him Immanuel.[d] 15 He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, 16 for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.

      As you might understand, this was later used typologically of Jesus.

      @ All, things are getting pretty cold, and my headaches have been a bit worse lately. I also get more tired when things are cold, so I will probably be responding a bit less to serious discussion. I want to take my mind off the pain, and relax.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Catholicity View Post
        I didn't put this under protology due to the exclusion of theistic evolutionists. Hence many wonderful Christians would be excluded from the debate.
        Umm ...

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Catholicity View Post
          I didn't put this under protology due to the exclusion of theistic evolutionists. Hence many wonderful Christians would be excluded from the debate.

          Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
          Umm ...
          And non-theistic jerks as well.

          Better?

          I'm always still in trouble again

          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
            @ Quantum Weirdness.
            First, only OEC and YEC are allowed in Applied Protology 201 without asking permission first. Second, God's rest that started on the Sabbath(hence the referral to a "Sabbath rest") being eternal does not make it logically follow that the seventh day itself was eternal.
            Now that I look at the passage again, fair enough. At this point, I don't think the bible supports YEC or OEC in any way.
            About the Exodus 20:11 passage, doesn't God experience time (consequently "days") differently? (per Psalm 90)
            Why should we apply our concept of time to God's?
            Also,
            "The commandment to keep the Sabbath in Exodus 20:11 is then cited on page 25 as conclusive evidence that Genesis is to be understood as six 24-hour days, since the Sabbath is kept after six 24-hour days. However this verse can be just as easily understood as teaching a pattern for Sabbath rather than the length of time of the Sabbath. This same pattern is seen in other passages in the Law, such as allowing the land to rest every seven years (Exodus 23:10-11). In fact the very next verse (Exodus 23:12) repeats the command for a weekly Sabbath rest, as if to reinforce the pattern of the earlier verses rather than specifying a length of time. This point seems to be entirely missed in the discussion of Exodus 20:11 on page 25."
            http://www.oldearth.org/bookreview/o...ec_trial_2.htm
            (N.B I don't agree that the word translated day there should be translated day. I think it should be translated time period in Exodus 20:11 and in Exodus 23:12 because it's a pattern applied to days and years)


            Another thing would be this:


            "The Young Earth Argument about Genesis 1:1-2

            In the previous sections it has been shown that Genesis 1:1-2 places no limit on the age of the Earth or on the age of the universe. Nevertheless, there are people who contest the issue and assert that the Bible says that the Earth and universe are about 6,000 to 10,000 years old. The argument is typically made by quoting the first part of Exodus 20:11, which is shown below.

            KJV Exodus 20:11 For in six days (yoms) the LORD made (asah) heaven and earth, the sea, and all that {is} in them, and rested the seventh day: . . .

            The advocate then notes that both heaven and Earth are mentioned and said to have been made "in six days." The "in" is interpreted as placing all the making of heaven and Earth within the six creative times. Subsequently, it is asserted that the "asah" of Exodus 20:11 includes the "bara" creation of Genesis 1:1. This assertion is based on a claimed full equivalence of "bara" (the word used in Genesis 1:1) and "asah," making these different Hebrew words interchangeable. In fact, both of these argumentative steps fail for reasons (1) and (2) as explained below.

            (1) The assertion based on the word in fails. The word "in" does not appear in the Hebrew text of Exodus 20:11 (or Exodus 31:17). The word "in" is a word added by the KJV translators. The KJV writes the word "in" in italics indicating that this word does not exist in the Hebrew text. But, the "in" is not italicized in most other English translations or in some recent printings of the KJV. Typically, the reader of Exodus 20:11 is unaware that the "in" is not in the Hebrew text. The insertion of the word "in" into the translation of Exodus 20:11 significantly distorts the meaning. The absence of the "in" removes the interpretation that all making must take place within the six creative times and voids the asserted inclusion of the "bara" of Genesis 1:1.

            YLT Exodus 20:11 for six days (yoms) hath Jehovah made (asah) the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that {is} in them, . . .
            KJV Exodus 20:11 For in six days (yoms) the LORD made (asah) heaven and earth, . . .

            הארץ ואת השׁמים את יהוה עשׂה ימים שׁשׁת כי Exodus 20:11
            the earth and the heavens Yahweh had made "yoms" six For ←

            בם אשׁר כל ואת הים את
            in them which all and the sea

            Young's Literal Translation (YLT) omits the word "in" and translates the verb עשׂה "asah" as a completed action by inserting the word "hath" before Jehovah. The accuracy of the YLT is verified by the Hebrew, shown with its literal translation for the portion of the verse in question.1



            Conclusion from (1): The Hebrew of Exodus 20:11 does not support placing the "bara" creation of Genesis 1:1 into the six creative time periods.
            Conclusion from (2). The assertion that "bara" (the word used in Genesis 1:1) and asah (the word used in Exodus 20:11) are fully equivalent and interchangeable also fails.


            Consider Genesis 2:3, a verse which uses both ברא "bara" (create) and עשׂה "asah" (made) with respect to the Genesis creation story. The difference in meaning is clear but requires careful explanation of the KJV translation of the Hebrew infinitive לעשׂות "to make" and the KJV margin note. In Genesis 2:3 below, the YLT translation "for making" is correct.

            YLT Gen. 2:3 And God blesseth the seventh day, and sanctifieth it, for in it He hath ceased from all His work which God had prepared (bara) for making.
            KJV Gen. 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created (bara) and made†.
            †Heb. created to make. (This is a margin note in the 1611 KJV.)

            Genesis 2:3
            כי אתו ויקדשׁ השׁביעי יום את אלהים ויברך (1)
            because it and sanctified the seventh "yom" God and blessed
            לעשׂות אלהים ברא אשׁר מלאכתו מכל שׁבת בו (2)
            "for making" or "to make" God had created (bara) which his work from all he had ceased in it

            Line (2) of the Hebrew uses ברא "bara," which is followed by לעשׂות "asah" in an infinitive form translated "for making." The infinitive also means "to make" as indicated by the KJV margin note. The "to make" indicated by the word לעשׂות "asah" takes place after the completed action "had created." Not only does the text indicate that "bara" and "asah" have different meanings, but it indicates that the subsequent "makings" followed the creating by intent!

            The translation of לעשׂות (asah) as "for making" or as the "to make" of the KJV margin note is correct for the following reasons: ל + עשׂות = לעשׂות is the infinitive עשׂות prefixed by the preposition ל which means "for" or "to" and expresses purpose. The preposition ל is not the preposition ו "waw" meaning "and" as it is translated in the KJV. The margin note indicates the KJV translators were aware that the Hebrew differed and was important to note. Only in Genesis 2:3 does the KJV translate לעשׂות "and made." Elsewhere the KJV translates the לעשׂות differently, examples being "to do" (91 times) and "to make" (21 times).

            Conclusion from (2): The writer of Genesis considered the words "bara" and "asah" to be different as indicated by that writer's use of the two words. These words are not interchangeable in the creation account. "

            http://www.godandscience.org/youngea...earth.html#n01

            I think there is also an argument from Mark 10:6.
            The problem with this argument is that "beginning" is not necessarily defined by time but by action. (eg the first paragraph of an essay may take a week to write and the rest could take an hour. Does that mean that the first paragraph is not the beginning?)
            -The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine.
            Sir James Jeans

            -This most beautiful system (The Universe) could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.All variety of created objects which represent order and Life in the Universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the Lord God.
            Sir Isaac Newton

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
              But that isn't what the text allows for. It specifically says immediately after God commanded something that "and it was so" showing a completion. Then it was followed by the time frame for how long the period was "evening and morning X day".
              Evening and morning are not following into another day, but evening is the biblical start of a new day -- as I called them loosely, "holidays" or special days when commands for creation are issued. From the beginning "Genesis 1:5 ...And the evening and the morning were the first day." Prior to evening was eternity, which sets the precedent that prior to these "holidays" can be an undetermined period of time. So it may look like, as a non-exact example:
              ETERNITY

              And the evening and the morning were the first day
              "Let there be light"

              .5 BILLION YEARS

              And the evening and the morning were the second day
              "Let there be earth"

              1 BILLION YEARS

              And the evening and the morning were the third day
              "Let there be plant life"

              Etc. So there's nothing here to "lock in" the idea of consecutive days. Or to say that the Creator did not accomplish and finish what He set out to do by initiating the command to see that it was very good.

              Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
              Did the wind and waves wait when Jesus commanded them to stop?
              Suggests that what God commands must always be completed immediately, which is the same complaint some have regarding "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" and then Adam doesn't die right then, he only started to die and "was as good as dead."

              Apply that to creation: "for in the day that thou create fruit thou shalt surely see fruit on trees." In the same manner, there only started to be fruit on trees; for actual fruit to appear on earth, just like Adam's death, took a lot longer, in my view.

              Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
              This is a non-literal reading with nothing to back it up. You need to pay attention to context in a passage, you did a good job showing onefour1's eisegesis to be faulty in another thread, why are you engaging in it here?

              Genesis 1:14 And God said, “ , and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

              None of your replacements fulfill the majority, or even a few of the assigned functions. No marking of seasons, no marking of special occasions, no separating night from day. The only one is your rather strained mention of "light" and trying to equate it to "life".

              You need to show why that meaning fits better. It doesn't given that again, most functions are still not being fulfilled, even if I do accept your rather bizarre interpretation.
              From the start there are the obvious problems of believing that the sun and stars are created after the earth and fruit trees, if you hold an ultra-literal interpretation.

              But this is like saying that the Bible itself forces a strained comparison of sun, moon, and stars as symbolism for spiritual things. It's impossible that functions are not comparable.

              Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
              This fails your own interpretation, as you equate death with darkness, and life with light. The tree of knowledge of good and evil could therefore not be a "lesser light". It only brought death and darkness.
              Not exactly, the Tree of Knowledge "shed light" on good and evil. If you consider what the moon actually does, it reflects the sun's light fully sometimes (good), other times not so much (evil). Recalling, "1 Corinthians 15:56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law."

              Without wanting to get into eschatology too much here, again why use sun, moon, and stars as symbolism? We might see something like a Kingdom clothed with the sun, a King and child of God with a crown of stars, conquering the moon here:

              Revelation 12:1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

              Psalms 89:36 His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me.

              Revelation 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

              Psalms 110:1 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

              1 Corinthians 15:54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
              In the original model, the first Kingdom of Adam as a star and child of God, clothed with the sun eating the Tree of Life, with the moon and Tree of Knowledge under his feet. Until he fell. Jesus as second Adam did not. In the end:

              Revelation 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.
              Then you can question, how do the glory of God and the Lamb replace assigned functions of the sun and moon described on the 4th day? I don't have to reach at all, the relationships speak for themselves throughout the Bible.

              Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
              There is absolutely no connection to do that. Those being in Ezekiel all had 4 faces, one eagle, one ox, one lion, and one human.
              Genesis 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle (OX), and to the fowl of the air (EAGLE), and to every beast of the field (LION); but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
              I'm not saying they are the same cherubim of Ezekiel, but to say there's no connection to creatures stated isn't accurate.

              Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
              Oh, and they aren't cherubim. What they are is not specified.
              ?

              Ezekiel 10:5 And the sound of the cherubims' wings was heard even to the outer court, as the voice of the Almighty God when he speaketh.
              Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
              Um, not quite. We are all in Adam, therefore we are all distantly related to Abraham. If any are not descended from Adam, then they wouldn't be truly human. Christ is the second Adam, and came to undo what the first one did. You also must understand that God made the law of the kinsman redeemer, and it is actually commonly portrayed throughout the Bible. I don't think it's part of God's nature to break His own rules and laws.

              1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.
              Adam is also called Son of God in Luke, even though he was created from dust. In that sense he descended from God. If other humans evolved from animals, they also descend from God. Doesn't make them any less human because they came from animals instead of dust. We're all kinsmen of the Creator.

              Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
              This makes no sense of the text, since God was giving us something we could understand from our time-bound perspective. For God to declare fallen creation as "very good" in that state would be a falsehood. Things are not "very good", which is why we need to be saved at all.
              Well it's God's plan, it is very good and more than that perfect, despite our perceived bumps along the way. Where in the Bible did most humans who knew of God not understand that He was omniscient, and were constrained by a time-bound perspective? We'd all be hopelessly confused by prophecy if that concern really existed.

              Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
              Then why isn't this reflected in the Genesis text? God could very easily have had things written to reflect the state of affairs you try to claim, but He didn't. The consistent use of the waw consecutive shows temporal and sequential order.
              It is reflected as I stated, before the evening and morning of the 1st day was eternity.

              Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
              Oh, and you were wrong about one thing a while back. You said that parthenogenesis had no Biblical precedent to the birth of Jesus, this is wrong. It happened before and was prophesied by Isaiah.

              Isaiah 7:13-16
              New International Version (NIV)
              13 Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you[a] a sign: The virgin[b] will conceive and give birth to a son, and[c] will call him Immanuel.[d] 15 He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, 16 for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.

              As you might understand, this was later used typologically of Jesus.
              I'll put it this way: the only biblical precedents for virgin birth are if the flesh of Jesus was made from Mary's or another Davidic "rib" and then gestated in Mary. Or, if a descendant of David was resurrected into Mary's womb.

              Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
              @ All, things are getting pretty cold, and my headaches have been a bit worse lately. I also get more tired when things are cold, so I will probably be responding a bit less to serious discussion. I want to take my mind off the pain, and relax.
              Hope you feel better!

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Catholicity View Post
                I didn't put this under protology due to the exclusion of theistic evolutionists. Hence many wonderful Christians would be excluded from the debate.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                  And non-theistic jerks as well.

                  Better?
                  okay okay okay fine....the non existent ones too.
                  A happy family is but an earlier heaven.
                  George Bernard Shaw

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                    I'll stick with God's own words on the matter.

                    Exodus 20:8 “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

                    Clearly literal days are intended otherwise the comparison directly to the working week would make no sense. Then from Exodus 20:1 we can see that it is indeed God speaking here.

                    Exodus 20:1 And God spoke all these words:
                    Yes, these are God's words. But how the days should be understood here is dependent on what kinds of days the Genesis days themselves are. It is not 'clear' the intent was literal. A comparison passage to passage is made, and on our end the time frame is in fact 24 hour days, but there is no 'need' that the days God described be literal in any sense. So you are assuming what you need to prove.

                    If the passage in Genesis is a technical description in terms of actual 24 hour periods of time, then the correlation here is 1-1 and also literal. But if those Genesis days and the Genesis passage is not a technical passage, then the days there stand as instructive or symbolic, and this passage is building on that example. Surely God could chose how he described His work which flows out of His infinitude and majesty in such a way that it could serve as an example to us of how we should work within our frail human limitations?

                    Do you in any other area assume that when you attempt to follow God's example, you are actually imitating Him in quantity as well as quality?

                    To determine the correct correlation one must know what Genesis 1 itself is in terms of a description of the creation. And science and a study of the Jewish culture and history provide the only available objective evidence as to what it might be. And that evidence points strongly at the fact Genesis is not a technical description at all.

                    Jim
                    Last edited by oxmixmudd; 01-20-2014, 08:20 AM.
                    My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                    If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                    This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      It seems to me that the origin debate is asking a question that author of Genesis never would have asked. John Walton is instructive here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbXCrpfHnDs

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                        Yes, these are God's words. But how the days should be understood here is dependent on what kinds of days the Genesis days themselves are. It is not 'clear' the intent was literal. A comparison passage to passage is made, and on our end the time frame is in fact 24 hour days, but there is no 'need' that the days God described be literal in any sense. So you are assuming what you need to prove.

                        If the passage in Genesis is a technical description in terms of actual 24 hour periods of time, then the correlation here is 1-1 and also literal. But if those Genesis days and the Genesis passage is not a technical passage, then the days there stand as instructive or symbolic, and this passage is building on that example. Surely God could chose how he described His work which flows out of His infinitude and majesty in such a way that it could serve as an example to us of how we should work within our frail human limitations?

                        Do you in any other area assume that when you attempt to follow God's example, you are actually imitating Him in quantity as well as quality?

                        To determine the correct correlation one must know what Genesis 1 itself is in terms of a description of the creation. And science and a study of the Jewish culture and history provide the only available objective evidence as to what it might be. And that evidence points strongly at the fact Genesis is not a technical description at all.

                        Jim
                        I have no reason to believe that these myths are in anyway God's Word. Especially since they are reworked myths from older sources.
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          And non-theistic jerks as well.

                          Better?
                          Careful with this vague generalization.
                          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                          go with the flow the river knows . . .

                          Frank

                          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            As an agnostic who wants to be a believer, I like to think that the Genesis account of creation (along with most creation stories in other religions/mythologies) is just a flawed interpretation of a grand, transcendant reality that all humans are aware of but can't truly comprehend.
                            "When the Western world accepted Christianity, Caesar conquered; and the received text of Western theology was edited by his lawyers…. The brief Galilean vision of humility flickered throughout the ages, uncertainly…. But the deeper idolatry, of the fashioning of God in the image of the Egyptian, Persian, and Roman imperial rulers, was retained. The Church gave unto God the attributes which belonged exclusively to Caesar."

                            — Alfred North Whitehead

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Duragizer View Post
                              As an agnostic who wants to be a believer, I like to think that the Genesis account of creation (along with most creation stories in other religions/mythologies) is just a flawed interpretation of a grand, transcendant reality that all humans are aware of but can't truly comprehend.
                              Sometimes I forget but right after I've read a post such as the one
                              above am I reminded of just how utterly lost many people are.

                              Jorge

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                                Careful with this vague generalization.
                                Shunya,you do realize Rogue is just playing around with Lao,right?
                                "It's evolution; every time you invent something fool-proof, the world invents a better fool."
                                -Unknown

                                "Preach the gospel, and if necessary use words." - Most likely St.Francis


                                I find that evolution is the best proof of God.
                                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                I support the :
                                sigpic

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                136 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X