It proves nothing of the sort. I believe created every bit as much as you do, we differ on the time scale. Besides, you don't take every word in the bible literally either so quiet being a jerk when people don't agree with your interpretations.You saying six billion years proves you don't believe him.
I think of this when people say they are Christian, then say God is a liar in the same breath.
Matthew 12:34
34 Brood of vipers! How can you, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.
Ignorant of that the iphone would be invented one day. But much more knowledgable of everything else.
It doesn't, and you know it doesn't. That is my point.
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
I gave one example. A parable isn't meant to be historical. A metaphor isn't meant to be taken literally. Christ didn't literally mean that the men he called vipers were snakes, by way of one example....Same question. How does a particular style of writing rule out the historicity of the contents?
Sure, but my point wasn't that they didn't.Same question. Parables have explanations that come along with the parables.
As a means of illustrating that creation was the direct result of divine will, that God is the author of law and being.Their details are directly mappable onto teaching concepts. How do the details of Genesis map onto clear teaching concepts. If God does not mean the following items as they are presented, what do they mean instead?
Genesis 1
- The earth was without form, and void.
- Darkness was on the face of the deep.
Divided? Light and darkness aren't a thing to be comingled then separated. I only mean by this to point out that we're already seeing a poetic, non literal device in play.[*]The Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
[*]God divided the light from the darkness.
Why would God name anything at this point? Names are only points of reference, symbols traded between limited intelligences so as to make a common point of reference for communication. Language itself doesn't make much sense at this juncture.[*]God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament.
[*]God called the firmament Heaven.
[*]The waters under the heavens .. gathered together into one place
[*]God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas.
I'm not approaching this considering the proposition of evolution. I'm approaching it from a literary perspective. It doesn't look like a literal set out to me. It looks like a poetic illustration of the hand of God in the formation/creation of all that is.Evolutionists don't just get to assert their opinion as if a weird idea has the same value as understanding the plain teaching of the bible. The bible is explicit, creation took six days.
I don't see that you'd have to be an evolutionist to believe that six days aren't literal, but I can certainly understand why someone who believed in evolution as methodology would need to see it otherwise.If the evolutionist wants to insist that six days means something else,
It does in the existence of non literal literary devices that underscore essential truths and principles. In this case, that everything that is owes its existence and willful formation to the authority and desire of God.he has to give good reason. And that good reason has to come from scripture.
That's a conclusion in search of an argument, because it doesn't just follow.The only other rational (in a limited sense) path to take is to reject the plain teaching of the bible.
I think that's a reasonable request.So, please. At least be rational.
You should probably lose the unreasonable inference and cowardly suggestion. It doesn't actually make a point except that you hold other opinions in some degree of contempt...not the best selling point, especially if you run into someone who has a different reason but might be open to considering your reading. In my experience few people are made more and many are made less likely to approach someone in the process of insulting them with an eager curiosity.Then when shown good reason, you might be convinced rather than having other arguments to hide within.
You should probably lose the unreasonable inference and cowardly suggestion. It doesn't actually make a point except that you hold other opinions in some degree of contempt...not the best selling point, especially if you run into someone who has a different reason but might be open to considering your reading. In my experience few people are made more and many are made less likely to approach someone in the process of insulting them with an eager curiosity.
I've got you on ignore, I've got you on ignore, I do, I do, I do :baby:
Which is to say exactly nothing in response to me. Jesus spoke with meaning and intent and He clearly explained that meaning and intent.I gave one example. A parable isn't meant to be historical. A metaphor isn't meant to be taken literally. Christ didn't literally mean that the men he called vipers were snakes, by way of one example.
Sure, they did.Sure, but my point wasn't that they didn't.
And this renders it a non-historical account, how?As a means of illustrating that creation was the direct result of divine will, that God is the author of law and being.
I don't know. I have an idea. How does my ignorance render Genesis 1 non-historical?What do you think that means? How can the earth be without form and exist?
The ocean. :duh:What is the deep?
And this renders the Genesis account non-historical, how?We didn't see it created in this telling but there it is.
Repeating the fact that Genesis 1 is poetry is not helping your case. It is of a poetic form. What I want to know is how a style of writing makes the content of the writing necessarily non-historical. Certainly there are many other places in the bible that use the same poetic forms that describe real events.Divided? Light and darkness aren't a thing to be comingled then separated. I only mean by this to point out that we're already seeing a poetic, non literal device in play.
You seem intent on mocking Genesis. What we want you to do is explain what these things mean if they do not mean what they plainly say.Why would God name anything at this point? Names are only points of reference, symbols traded between limited intelligences so as to make a common point of reference for communication. Language itself doesn't make much sense at this juncture.
Do you have any good reasons or are you just going to repeat non sequiturs?I'm not approaching this considering the proposition of evolution. I'm approaching it from a literary perspective. It doesn't look like a literal set out to me. It looks like a poetic illustration of the hand of God in the formation/creation of all that is.
Do you have any good reasons or are you just going to repeat non sequiturs?It does in the existence of non literal literary devices that underscore essential truths and principles. In this case, that everything that is owes its existence and willful formation to the authority and desire of God.
Until you are able to give good reason why we should not accept that Genesis means what it plainly says, there are two rational routes to take.That's a conclusion in search of an argument, because it doesn't just follow.
Sounds like I well communicated what I think. :up:You should probably lose the unreasonable inference and cowardly suggestion. It doesn't actually make a point except that you hold other opinions in some degree of contempt
Not trying to make money.not the best selling point
Nothing I say can stop a rational person considering rationally what I say.especially if you run into someone who has a different reason but might be open to considering your reading.
This is your argument?In my experience few people are made more and many are made less likely to approach someone in the process of insulting them with an eager curiosity.
:think:Maybe Stripe's not all that concerned with your foppish opinion and overrated estimation of your abilities :idunno:
But then TH has a sharp mind. Perhaps he can see past my "insults" and come up with something substantial to contribute. :thumb:
I am fully on board with Stripe on this one.
I do agree that there are a great many devoted, saved Christians who do not believe in a six day creation and even many who believe God caused creation to happen through evolution.
Still
I believe that this belief has caused generations of people to doubt that the Bible is true!
When has he ever? :idunno:
What do you think that means? How can the earth be without form and exist? What is the deep? We didn't see it created in this telling but there it is.
Divided? Light and darkness aren't a thing to be co-mingled then separated. I only mean by this to point out that we're already seeing a poetic, non literal device in play.
Why would God name anything at this point? Names are only points of reference, symbols traded between limited intelligences so as to make a common point of reference for communication. Language itself doesn't make much sense at this juncture.
That's not true, Stripe. I noted that the Bible uses a variety of literary devices that aren't literal or historical.Which is to say exactly nothing in response to me.
That's not responsive to my point. The debate is over whether Genesis is being literal and whether it is necessarily so. I don't see it and I told you why.Jesus spoke with meaning and intent and He clearly explained that meaning and intent.
I literally answered you directly on the point. It is readable as a poetic account representing the authority and authorship of creation by God.If Genesis 1 is to be read in the same way, what do its details mean if they do not mean what they exactly say. What do these mean:
Not relevant to my point, as I explained prior and above.Sure, they did.
Answered directly prior and again above.Jesus explained what He meant when He spoke in parables. What does Genesis 1 mean if it doesn't mean what it plainly says?
That assumes the literal/historical, which is the point of contention to begin with. I asked a couple of questions to note the poetic that doesn't appear aimed at a literal, let alone scientific understanding.And this renders it a non-historical account, how?
I didn't say it did. I just asked you a reasonable question that you can't reasonably answer. I can't either unless I consider it, again, as the poetic illustration of a larger principle of God's authority and power. When I have two ways of seeing a thing and only one that affords me a reasoned explanation, I lean toward the one with support.I don't know. I have an idea. How does my ignorance render Genesis 1 non-historical?
Thanks. Where'd it come from in that literal spelling out of how things arrived?The ocean. :duh:
"I don't know" isn't doing much for yours. But if you don't want repetition stop asking the same question. Because that's what you did.Repeating the fact that Genesis 1 is poetry is not helping your case.
Specific and real events? What do you have in mind. I'd like to look at that.Certainly there are many other places in the bible that use the same poetic forms that describe real events.
It wasn't a non sequitur. And I only repeat my point because you keep rearranging the same inquiry. Again, that's easily fixed.Do you have any good reasons or are you just going to repeat non sequiturs?
Only if you're stupid. I don't think you're stupid. But you're obviously so accustomed to a hostile and equally entrenched objection that you're jumping to a conclusion that isn't in line with the offering.You seem intent on mocking Genesis.
I did. If a thing isn't literal it isn't going to have a literal parallel. It means that God is the author of everything. Why isn't every love song just "I love you" with a different melody?What we want you to do is explain what these things mean if they do not mean what they plainly say.
False premise. It reads, but you interject the plainly says business. That's the point of discussion.Until you are able to give good reason why we should not accept that Genesis means what it plainly says,
Another false premise and conclusion. You can accept it as being meant to be literally taken or you can take it as poetic license illustrating a larger foundational truth.there are two rational routes to take.
Accept the Genesis account as it is plainly written.
Reject the Genesis account.
It's actually more convincing if you can't answer fairly obvious questions reasonably raised, while the alternative doesn't have that particular problem.Trying to make Genesis mean something other than what it plainly says requires some very careful and convincing reasons. Telling us it is poetry is not a good or convincing reason.
That's too bad then.Sounds like I well communicated what I think. :up:
Look if this is just a blog for you with interruptions and you don't care about altering anyone's opinion through discourse and reason that's your call. But it's a peculiar habit.Not trying to make money.
Which is why teachers routinely insult their students before a lesson? You're wrong. How you go about your testimony impacts how people view it and how they listen to you. That's human nature. If someone who isn't wedded to a particular view but has a leaning for a number of reasons asks you why you think what you do and you offer insult as part of your method where no insult (rather, interest instead) has been proffered, you don't put yourself or your argument in its best frame.Nothing I say can stop a rational person considering rationally what I say.
That's your counter/answer?This is your argument?
That's too bad also.think:
:up:
Maybe you'll see past that chip at some point and realize you were being approached by someone who was both friendly and curious.But then TH has a sharp mind. Perhaps he can see past my "insults" and come up with something substantial to contribute. :thumb:
Agreed. How does this make Genesis non-historical?the Bible uses a variety of literary devices that aren't literal or historical.
I'm not responding to anything you say. I'm asking you to justify your opinion. You claim Genesis does not mean what it plainly says. Show us why this opinion is reasonable.That's not responsive to my point.
That's great. How does this make Genesis non-historical?It is readable as a poetic account representing the authority and authorship of creation by God.
So suddenly when you're shown wrong it's not relevant? Parables are explained. Where is the explanation for Genesis if it is the same thing?Not relevant to my point
That assumes the literal/historical, which is the point of contention to begin with.
False premise. It reads, but you interject the plainly says business. That's the point of discussion.
Which might be a reasonable objection if the content of Genesis were not so explicitly clear. It says "Six days". If you want that to mean something else it is incumbent upon you to show good reason for your alternative meaning. I need not provide anything to support the fact that Genesis (and the rest of the bible) does indeed say "Six days".Another false premise and conclusion. You can accept it as being meant to be literally taken or you can take it as poetic license illustrating a larger foundational truth.
We're looking for reason to believe Genesis is not historical. I don't believe anyone reads anything "literally" as has been defined by you in this thread. You cannot read much without finding people being compared to snakes or something.I asked a couple of questions to note the poetic that doesn't appear aimed at a literal, let alone scientific understanding.
So, no reasons then?I didn't say it did.
Sure, I can.I just asked you a reasonable question that you can't reasonably answer.
Your ignorance is no good reason either.I can't either unless I consider it, again, as the poetic illustration of a larger principle of God's authority and power.
False dichotomy. There is no doubt an explanation (the right one) that you have no inkling of.When I have two ways of seeing a thing and only one that affords me a reasoned explanation, I lean toward the one with support.
That's nice. Now, perhaps you'll do us a favour and instead of blindly repeating this mantra "It's peotry, it's poetry!" you can explain to us why poetry cannot be a description of historical events. As has been pointed out and as you have ignored, poetry of the same kind is used plenty of other times in the bible to describe other historical events.And Genesis speaks to me as poetry, in the formation/creation of what is.
You may not introduce science to this discussion until you show how your understanding of Genesis is rational and reasonable.As science it doesn't.
I think I'm more than capable of giving a reasonable explanation for each and every one of those points I raised. For instance, I knew that the deep refers to oceans when you did not.As a literal accounting it leaves me, as it did you, scratching my head.
Mindless platitude. What you need to deliver is good reason for why we should accept your opinion of what Genesis represents.But how God accomplished it is less important to me than that He accomplished it, which either reading attests to.
Jesus made it. Just like He made everything else. :duh:Thanks. Where'd it come from in that literal spelling out of how things arrived?
What we need is good reason to accept what you say. So far you've got "poetry". And that one has been shot full of holes. One wonders how evolutionists have the temerity to keep using it. :think:"I don't know" isn't doing much for yours. But if you don't want repetition stop asking the same question. Because that's what you did.
Pretty simple exercise. Look up the name for the type of poetry that Genesis is written in then do a search for other examples of that type.Specific and real events? What do you have in mind. I'd like to look at that.
Yes, it is. When we ask why "Six days" does not mean "Six days" and you say "Because it is poetry" your conclusion does not necessarily follow. Certainly we know that it could be a poetic device actually referring to something else, but then we'd want to know what it meant instead. And we'd want to look at the poem to find that answer.It wasn't a non sequitur.
I want you to tell us what the poetry means if it doesn't mean what it plainly says. If you don't know, feel free to tell us. Finding out that I don't have a poetic interpretation or do not understand something is not points in favour of your argument.You appeared to want specifics. You've asked for them. I gave you the first and you didn't have an answer, which I appreciate as an honest response, even if unhelpful for me in moving any closer to your understanding. I give you another point that's simply a logical observation, if we're to take this literally. Why is God naming things when language itself should be meaningless. He knows what He has created. He isn't going to be confused on a point. And who is He going to speak with who would be? Literally speaking, he'll let Adam name things later. That makes sense. At this point it doesn't.
Details. This is an empty platitude. You need to delve into the details and tell us what those details mean. Like with an actual parable the seeds represent something and that representation is explained. The soil represents something and that representation is carefully explained. The bird represents something and that representation is explained. If Genesis is like a parable, what do its details mean? What is the firmament and why was it divided by water? How does that detail translate into "God is the author of everything"?I did. If a thing isn't literal it isn't going to have a literal parallel. It means that God is the author of everything. Why isn't every love song just "I love you" with a different melody?
You're just dodging the issue.I omit your ongoing habit of proclaiming non sequitur without establishing it beyond that attestation.
Nope. I can answer your questions. Your questions are irrelevant to the challenge you face. You've invented an alternative meaning for Genesis 1 as opposed to what it clearly states. It is incumbent upon you to give good reason why we should accept your opinion when the written word expressly contradicts what you say.It's actually more convincing if you can't answer fairly obvious questions reasonably raised, while the alternative doesn't have that particular problem.
I'm sure you'll get over it. :up:That's too bad then.
I care about your opinion. I care enough that you would have an opinion that is robust and explicable. Your rejection of Genesis is founded upon, "It's poetry". This is a lame opinion.Look if this is just a blog for you with interruptions and you don't care about altering anyone's opinion through discourse and reason that's your call. But it's a peculiar habit.
I haven't insulted you and I'm not trying to teach you anything. I'm asking you to explain to us why your opinion is reasonable.Which is why teachers routinely insult their students before a lesson?
:yawn:How you go about your testimony impacts how people view it and how they listen to you.
Are you going to keep this up?That's human nature. If someone who isn't wedded to a particular view but has a leaning for a number of reasons asks you why you think what you do and you offer insult as part of your method where no insult (rather, interest instead) has been proffered, you don't put yourself or your argument in its best frame.
Calling stupid ideas stupid is sometimes the only way to express the truth.Why would anyone who has something they consider important to say do that?
Nope. What I'm interested in is a rational discussion. Listening to you wail on as if I insulted you is boring.That's your counter/answer?
The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for February 28th, 2013 06:00 AM
toldailytopic: Are the 6 days of creation in the book of Genesis a literal 6 days?
Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.
toldailytopic: Are the 6 days of creation in the book of Genesis a literal 6 days?
I believe that its 6 days, but 6 days meaning 6000 years.
Satans lies are like tricks, they are deceptive, satan said to eve that no she would not surely die that day and her and adam did not die in that 24 hour day, but they did die that day if what david and peter said is literally true.
I allow for myself to be wrong on this
Either way i believe in a young earth and the canopy theory.
Poof into existence? Who has ever believed such a thing? For instance, God built man [Adam] from the ground up, literally.Depends what kind of person you are:
Idiot: Yes
Rational: No
Who even requires it to be 6 literal days? Unless God can poof sheep into existen.... Nvm, it's not even worth consideration.