toldailytopic: Are the 6 days of creation in the book of Genesis a literal 6 days?

[noguru]

:mock:noguru, who thinks planets fall to earth

I really have no idea why you would claim this is what I think. I think you are just being purposely dense.

Hey doofus, stars don't fall to earth. Some meteors fall to earth other meteors burn up in the earth's atmosphere. Both of these are not really "falling stars". This is just more evidence that the ancients did not have an accurate understanding of cosmology.

Do you have any other brilliant points that support your model of origins which claims the ancients had an accurate understanding of science?

:rotfl:

 

[Alate_One]

And the more you try to do so (either way) the less you will appreciate the real message of Genesis 1. It is a distraction. And YEC is a bane on Christianity for that reason and others.

I absolutely agree here.

However, there are a lot of evolutionists who believe that the randomness (call it accidence or something else) inherent within the theory of evolution proves that God is not required as an explanation for the world and so much of their teaching is slanted towards an atheistic perspective. I can't accept this.

Just remember that making the statement that science can disprove God is scientifically incorrect. Science is and must be agnostic on the perspective of the existence of God and His superintendence of nature. This is where people like Richard Dawkins go wrong.

 

[noguru]

I absolutely agree here.

Just remember that making the statement that science can disprove God is scientifically incorrect. Science is and must be agnostic on the perspective of the existence of God and His superintendence of nature. This is where people like Richard Dawkins go wrong.

This is exactly why Barb says that YECism is a great atheist maker. For many years as an agnostic I let the YEC thinking about this, which is actually very similar to the atheist thinking on this issue, keep me in that agnostic quandary.

 

[Desert Reign]

I absolutely agree here.

Just remember that making the statement that science can disprove God is scientifically incorrect. Science is and must be agnostic on the perspective of the existence of God and His superintendence of nature. This is where people like Richard Dawkins go wrong.

Yes. But although they mostly wouldn't state it explicitly, it is under the surface of much of what they write. "God, I have no need of that hypothesis" kind of thing. This is especially inherent in the notion that pure accidents are sufficient to explain life and diversity.

 

[noguru]

Yes. But although they mostly wouldn't state it explicitly, it is under the surface of much of what they write. "God, I have no need of that hypothesis" kind of thing. This is especially inherent in the notion that pure accidents are sufficient to explain life and diversity.

Which definition of accident are you using?

1 a : an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance
b : lack of intention or necessity : chance <met by accident rather than by design>

2 a : an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance

b : an unexpected and medically important bodily event especially when injurious <a cerebrovascular accident>
c : an unexpected happening causing loss or injury which is not due to any fault or misconduct on the part of the
person injured but for which legal relief may be sought
d: —used euphemistically to refer to an involuntary act or instance of urination or defecation

3: a nonessential property or quality of an entity or circumstance
<the accident of nationality>

 

[Alate_One]

I have a window in the screen wall of my tent. :idunno:

The sky isn't a screen. It's a layer of gas. How do you put a window in a layer of gas?

It better be blocking most of it :chuckle:

It's blocking less thanks to human activity.

Are you proposing that the ancients didn't know that the stars move across the sky? :freak:

No. The sky was thought to be a large dome that rotated. This later became increased to a series of spheres that were thought to rotate around the earth.

The sky has windows :idunno:

That asteroid the other day in Russia just blew one open. It's closed now.

Sorry, no air-shield doors.

And I've already covered the stars falling to earth thing.

Right, you're just being silly at this point. Tiny Meteors are not the same as stars that are 10,000 times the size of earth. Stars can't fall to earth. The earth would "fall" into them if they got close.

Scale of earth sun and stars

 

[resurrected]

I suppose we're done then. You think I'm being silly, I can't make you understand the points I'm trying to make and noguru's been having an emotional meltdown all day.

Perhaps tomorrow would be better for this.

 

[doloresistere]

Which definition of accident are you using?

1 a : an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance

That one I would think. If most of the scientist who test the ToE and make predictions regarding the ToE use the above definition, there is reason for a Christian to be agnostic towards it.

 

[Stripe]

Why? I'm not saying that evolution is correct. But it is a study of history. That is its purpose: to ascertain what the history of species change was. Got it? HISTORY.

Then you're equivocating on the definition of historical that is in use.

Genesis is historical narrative. It is a description of how the Earth was actually made and populated.

Evolution is entirely incompatible with Genesis as an account of the history.

I suppose we're done then. You think I'm being silly, I can't make you understand the points I'm trying to make and noguru's been having an emotional meltdown all day.

They're determined to make a mockery of everything the bible says and entirely unwilling to listen to alternative ideas to their silly cartoons.

 

[Paulos]

Genesis is historical narrative. It is a description of how the Earth was actually made and populated...They're determined to make a mockery of everything the bible says and entirely unwilling to listen to alternative ideas to their silly cartoons.

Versus:

If you understand the Genesis account for what it is,
namely a Jewish children's story ...you can't rely upon it as a detailed scientific historical account...it is not a geological or biological treatise.

Its a cartoon sketch for kids.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

AMR: To my understanding, St. Augustine didn't believe that the 6 days were literal

Rather he believed one day was created and repeated seven times. See his In Genesim ad Litteram.

AMR

 

[Town Heretic]

Rather he believed one day was created and repeated seven times. See his In Genesim ad Litteram.

AMR

Sort of a TruthSetFree thread parallel...except seven would be, well, who knows...we're still counting.

lain:

More seriously, was that a time commentary or something else?

 

[noguru]

I suppose we're done then. You think I'm being silly, I can't make you understand the points I'm trying to make and noguru's been having an emotional meltdown all day.

Perhaps tomorrow would be better for this.

Right, when your comments demonstrate that you lack critical thinking skills, blame it on me and claim I am "having an emotional meltdown". Typical for you, really.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

reason and logic are the first casualties to your approach

Er, no.

[FONT=&quot]When it comes to the Genesis creation account, the standard gramatico-historic hermeneutic is being assaulted by proposed "new hermeneutics" created solely to support gap, framework, theistic evolution, analogical, etc., theories. The centuries old standard hermeneutic has to be tossed aside to accommodate these new views about the creation account.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]To anyone examining this issue closely, it is clear that all views that are contrary to the six literal day view of creation are the products of external conclusions about the world. The Bible is sufficiently comprehensive regarding its own data. The Bible is its own interpreter. Yes, external data and information can and is often useful, but in the final analysis, this external data and information is completely dispensable. This external information is not necessary for obtaining a completely correct understanding of any given portion of Scripture. I am not just implying this to be the case confined strictly to spiritual topics—but in each and every way a text of Scripture speaks—figuratively, historically, physically, and so on. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]When a person comes along and declares that their investigations conclude that the earth was not created in six literal days, the hermeneutical tree is being challenged from branch to root. So before anyone starts offering up new explanations for a text in Scripture, we must first understand what was wrong with the former explanation—working our way up the hermeneutical tree. We just don’t declare the old explanation wrong because some new challenge happens along and told us it was wrong (Genesis 3:4). :AMR: We must remember that any reason so offered from some alternative authority is rejecting the original authority.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]After tossing aside standard hermeneutics proponents of these external conclusions import them upon the biblical text with a demand that the text can and should be forced to read in a manner that does not challenge these externally made conclusions. In effect, a new final authority has been created. May it never be!
[/FONT]

AMR

 

[Stripe]

Er, no. [FONT=&quot]When it comes to the Genesis creation account, the standard gramatico-historic hermeneutic is being assaulted by proposed "new hermeneutics" created solely to support gap, framework, theistic evolution, analogical, etc., theories. The centuries old standard hermeneutic has to be tossed aside to accommodate these new views about the creation account.[/FONT] [FONT=&quot] [/FONT] [FONT=&quot]To anyone examining this issue closely, it is clear that all views that are contrary to the six literal day view of creation are the products of external conclusions about the world. The Bible is sufficiently comprehensive regarding its own data. The Bible is its own interpreter. Yes, external data and information can and is often useful, but in the final analysis, this external data and information is completely dispensable. This external information is not necessary for obtaining a completely correct understanding of any given portion of Scripture. I am not just implying this to be the case confined strictly to spiritual topics—but in each and every way a text of Scripture speaks—figuratively, historically, physically, and so on. [/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT] [FONT=&quot]When a person comes along and declares that their investigations conclude that the earth was not created in six literal days, the hermeneutical tree is being challenged from branch to root. So before anyone starts offering up new explanations for a text in Scripture, we must first understand what was wrong with the former explanation—working our way up the hermeneutical tree. We just don’t declare the old explanation wrong because some new challenge happens along and told us it was wrong (Genesis 3:4). :AMR: We must remember that any reason so offered from some alternative authority is rejecting the original authority.[/FONT] [FONT=&quot] [/FONT] [FONT=&quot]After tossing aside standard hermeneutics proponents of these external conclusions import them upon the biblical text with a demand that the text can and should be forced to read in a manner that does not challenge these externally made conclusions. In effect, a new final authority has been created. May it never be![/FONT]AMR

Or, how I put it:
The bible says "Six days". You need to give good reason why it does not mean what it plainly says.

"It's poetry" is not a good reason. :nono:

 

[resurrected]

Six days isn't very poetic

 

[noguru]

Er, no.

[FONT=&quot]When it comes to the Genesis creation account, the standard gramatico-historic hermeneutic is being assaulted by proposed "new hermeneutics" created solely to support gap, framework, theistic evolution, analogical, etc., theories. The centuries old standard hermeneutic has to be tossed aside to accommodate these new views about the creation account.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]To anyone examining this issue closely, it is clear that all views that are contrary to the six literal day view of creation are the products of external conclusions about the world. The Bible is sufficiently comprehensive regarding its own data. The Bible is its own interpreter. Yes, external data and information can and is often useful, but in the final analysis, this external data and information is completely dispensable. This external information is not necessary for obtaining a completely correct understanding of any given portion of Scripture. I am not just implying this to be the case confined strictly to spiritual topics—but in each and every way a text of Scripture speaks—figuratively, historically, physically, and so on.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]When a person comes along and declares that their investigations conclude that the earth was not created in six literal days, the hermeneutical tree is being challenged from branch to root. So before anyone starts offering up new explanations for a text in Scripture, we must first understand what was wrong with the former explanation—working our way up the hermeneutical tree. We just don’t declare the old explanation wrong because some new challenge happens along and told us it was wrong (Genesis 3:4). :AMR: We must remember that any reason so offered from some alternative authority is rejecting the original authority.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]After tossing aside standard hermeneutics proponents of these external conclusions import them upon the biblical text with a demand that the text can and should be forced to read in a manner that does not challenge these externally made conclusions. In effect, a new final authority has been created. May it never be!
[/FONT]

AMR

God authored the physical world and the evidence we can find there, did He not?

If one thinks that God did not author the physical world, then one has obviously rejected the first and most obvious point of Genesis.

If He did author the physical world, then the evidence there is of the same authority as what can be found in scripture.

 

[noguru]

Six days isn't very poetic

:think:

What?

There is more to the creation narrative than just the words "six days".

Among other literary devices, elements of the following two types can be seen very clearly:

Allusion

Definition:
An allusion is a figure of speech whereby the author refers to a subject matter such as a place, event, or literary work by way of a passing reference. It is up to the reader to make a connection to the subject being mentioned.

Setting a weekly standard for the acknowledgement of God's creative power.

Amplification

Definition:
Amplification refers to a literary practice wherein the writer embellishes the sentence by adding more information to it in order to increase its worth and understandability. When a plain sentence is too abrupt and fails to convey the full implications desired, amplification comes into play when the writer adds more to the structure to give it more meaning.

Establishes the exact dividing point within Judaic culture of sunset being the beginning of the next day.

Hence why Jews have acknowledged, from the beginning of written (and probably oral as well) history, the Sabbath as beginning on Friday at sunset.

From here.

 

[Paulos]

After tossing aside standard hermeneutics proponents of these external conclusions import them upon the biblical text with a demand that the text can and should be forced to read in a manner that does not challenge these externally made conclusions. In effect, a new final authority has been created. May it never be!

AMR

One problem with this is that the Bible clearly describes a geocentric cosmology:

http://www.biblicalscholarship.net/geoscrip.htm

As Martin Luther wrote:

"There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must...invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth." (Joshua 10:12-13)​

You are violating the "standard gramatico-historic hermeneutic" by accepting the heliocentric model.

 

[Alate_One]

You are violating the "standard gramatico-historic hermeneutic" by accepting the heliocentric model.

And the geocentric model was far more widely accepted (by theologians) in historic Christianity than a literal interpretation of the seven day account ever has been. Yet, that interpretive model has been almost completely rejected in modern Christianity due entirely to the arrival of new extra-biblical evidence.