I just figured if qualified scholars come up with a different spin on Genesis than you do, they must have a reason. Scholars have their profession credentials on the line, so they are not likely to make the same kind of unsupported assertions that you thrive on.
Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter MichaelCadry
- Start date
- Status
:darwinsm:
Only an evolutionist could say with a straight face that the statement: "The Bible teaches 'six days' of creation" is an "unsupported assertion."
And what do you care? Your only possible motivation to join a discussion over the meaning of scripture as it pertains to origins would be to protect your fellow evolutionists.
Then if there are credible scholars of ancient Hebrew that differ with you on the literal 6 days question, they must therefore be evolutionists? Know any more funny jokes like that?
:AMR:
Struggling with comprehension isn't something you want to become known for.
You claimed that I "thrive on unfounded assumptions." However, asserting that the Bible teaches "six days" is a statement of fact. It does teach "six days."
What you need to do is think through your engagements a bit better. :up:
Ok, when I pull up the first dictionary definition of “days” that I find on the internet, the second definition it lists for day is “a period of the past, or an era”. So since you are so insistent on the English word “day”, there is a valid definition – “an era”. Are eras always 24 hours long in the Stipean world?
6days
New member
The word 'day' in English has the same variety of definitions as the Hebrew word 'yom'. The word is always undestood by context. The word 'yom' in Genesis 1 is quite clearly referring to normal 24 hour days. Hebrew scholars at all the worlds major universities agree the author took pains repeating phrases that makes normal days as the intention.
There are a variety of other ways of determining the meaning also such as using other scripture to help with interpretation.
6days
New member
Back in the day when Christ was on earth, it often was a 3 day journey to the nearest town, if you walked only in the day.
3 different meanings to the word 'day' within one sentence but all understood by context.
You have provided something that Stipe has demonstrated a complete inability to do – a brief explanation for why you think the word “day” means 24 hours. Thank, you, whether right or wrong, it is good to see something said on the subject beyond Stipe’s mindless pretense that anyone not agreeing with him is not qualified to be in the discussion.
I will take exception only mildly with what you said, to this extent: you say “Hebrew scholars at all the world’s major universities agree….”. I am aware of one debate where one side argued for long ages as the meaning for “yom”, and in defense named several eminent Hebrew scholars who supported that view. (The opposing side of the debate pointed out that the list of scholars supporting the 24-hour view was much longer than the list of long-age view scholars).
But keeping the rules constant, it is not the messenger, or the number of messengers that determines the correctness of one side of a disputed argument, it is the facts supporting the argument that count.
And alas, in spite of often saying “evidence, evidence, evidence”, Stipe relishes his mindless unsupported declaration that only those who automatically subscribe to 24-hour days are capable of participating in an intelligent discussion. When I ask him for the supporting evidence, he resorts (true to form) instead to character assassination.
Stipe explains why he's unable to defend his silly claims:
Yeah, we get it, Stipe. You'd love to show us the math, but the Evil Barbarian™ won't let you.
Yeah, we get it, Stipe. You'd love to show us the math, but the Evil Barbarian™ won't let you.
everready
New member
The word of God defends Stripe, its not the evil Barbarian its a spirit of bondage that won't let you see the truth.
everready
alwight
New member
In terms of the creation of everything a "day" is, it seems to me, a totally meaningless or relative term depending on which planet or moon the observer is on. Ancient people didn't know about other planetary bodies, or even that the Earth was one, which is why they could only use "a day" as a term of reference. A day in scripture is a clearly meant to be a day of 24 hours imo.
That alone surely makes ancient scripture not something to treat as a literal historical truth? :idunno:
way 2 go
Well-known member
Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
it says the evening and the morning were the first day.
1 rotation of the earth = 1 day
the only thing the bible does not say is how long it took the earth
to rotate once.
6days
New member
DavisBJ said:
Perhaps.....
Generally any Hebrew 'scholar' who argues that the 6 days of creation, are long periods of time are not arguing from scripture...but, instead they are trying to incorporate evolutionary beliefs into scripture.*
James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University, former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford..."Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; .. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.".
DavisBJ said:
True... Stripe, myself and others often make that same argument.
DavisBJ said:
Well..... in defence of Stripe, he is often replying to those who are unwilling to honestly engage.*
For example .... there are some here in TOL who refuse to acknowledge he (or creationists in general) have any legitimate arguments. Instead they respond to him with strawman arguments and ad hominem. They argue against absolutely anything and everything. In fact....in one such encounter recently, the TOL'r argued against something previously said. However, he didn't seem to realize the statement he was arguing against was his own. So.... some people here are deserving of scorn and or the ignore button.*
alwight
New member
Why would it, an Earth day was simply the perceived length of a day for those without timepieces to measure it by, and for whoever wrote or translated ancient scripture?
It only became a scriptural problem when the actual age of the Earth could be deduced from physical evidence.
(Stipe again declines to support his claim that math refutes evolution, because Barbarian won't accept his new interpretation of Genesis)
Barbarian chuckles:
Yeah, we get it, Stipe. You'd love to show us the math, but the Evil Barbarian™ won't let you.
If that were so, Stipe wouldn't be dodging the question. If truth is on his side, he wouldn't be hiding from it.
Funny how those caught up in that, never think it's themselves who are in bondage, um?
Barbarian chuckles:
Yeah, we get it, Stipe. You'd love to show us the math, but the Evil Barbarian™ won't let you.
If that were so, Stipe wouldn't be dodging the question. If truth is on his side, he wouldn't be hiding from it.
Funny how those caught up in that, never think it's themselves who are in bondage, um?
I think everyone would like to see Stipe defend his claim that evolution is mathematically impossible. Do you think you could convince him to step up and do that?
Presently, he's saying he can't do it, because I won't agree with him on his new interpretation of Genesis.
You know that thing about "engaging honestly?" See if you can get him to do it.
Who's to say that the actual age of the Earth is correctly dated? Are the methods the same as Carbon-14 dating techniques, or uranium, etc.? I really don't care about the dating methods used to date the age of things might be correct either. I don't believe the ages of faraway galaxies are more than 7,000 some years old either. It is all a mystery that God will reveal very soon. I remember that Carbon-14 dating and Piltdown man dating, etc. is all a bunch of junk. I don't trust science as far as I can throw it. My God tells me that the Universe is as old as the Earth, being created in the same week. Same with these 'distant' galaxies. They were created in the same week also. God will lift the 'veil' when He is ready. And when the seventh angel sounded, "the mystery of God should be finished, as He has declared to His servants, the prophets." {Rev. 10:7KJV}. I also do not trust the dating they did on the Shroud of Turin. Man is so fallible, it makes me shudder. Maybe that distant galaxy is 7,000 some years old. Now that I could believe. God determines what man sees through a telescope. And man's wrong ideas. "But the people who DO know their God, shall be strong, and do exploits." {Dan. 11:32KJV}.
Michael
Michael
Argon-argon testing accurately called the eruption that buried Pompeii, for example. But yes, one of the compelling arguments for radioisotope dating is the fact that diverse methods give us the same answers.
http://gondwanaresearch.com/radiomet.htm
I don't buy your radioisotope dating whatsoever. Especially when it dates things that are 1 million or 4.5 billion years old?? Give me a break. Believe it for yourself. Leave me out of it.
Michael
Michael
You should probably do some in-depth Bible study if that is what you think those two verses refer to.
The first is a reference to just about anything, as it is purposefully vague.
The second is a crystal clear reference to the anthropomorphic gods of polytheistic cultures, particularly the Egyptians. There is no possible way this verse can be interpreted to apply to evolution. That's ridiculous
- Status