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

[Alate_One]

Ah, great. Another "it's poetry therefore it isn't history" argument.

If you'd actually read what I wrote, you'd see it's much more complicated than that.

But hey that would mean you'd have to actually think about someone else's idea rather than repeating whatever it is you believe, "six days" in this case, over and over. As if you'll get everyone to agree with you if you just say it enough times.

but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.

Well Adam didn't die on that literal 24 hour day now did he? I guess the Bible's all wrong. Because it said THAT DAY and it didn't happen.

You can be just as moronically rigid with almost any passage you like:

The fool (Copernicus) wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy. But sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth. - Martin Luther

Evolutionists. Utterly devoid of good reasons since 1906.

Is it just me or do you call everyone you disagree with an "evolutionist"?

 

[Alate_One]

All right. On the Nazaroo thread you (or was it Noguru?) said that mutations were errors of copying. I don't mind if you want to avoid the word 'random' but 'error' is not really different. A sum total of errors does not equate to purpose. Natural selection is stated to be the driver of change but this is then surely an exaggeration because the change (=mutation) has already occurred before natural selection has operated. But maybe you are right.

Was Esau's choice of giving up his birthright over a bowl of stew an error? Was Abraham giving his blessing to the wrong son an error? I'd say almost certainly. Yet, they played into God's plan for His people.

The bible shows that God works through long drawn out processes and uses broken people and their mistakes to bring about his ends. Why should it not be true with nature as a whole?

But as to Alexander, I have no issue with that: the Bible records what happened. If it had happened differently, it would have recorded that. Those who are hung up on predestination seem to think that everything in the Bible had to happen the way it did. Of course it didn't. If the New Testament had been written in Aramaic, that would have changed nothing. Apart from I would have been an expert in that language and not ancient Greek...

But if Aramaic was limited to ancient Israel and not spoken all over the known world (plus the excellent Roman road system) do you think Christianity would have spread as easily or as fast? I am not one to say God could not have accomplished his purpose in other ways, but it's interesting to think about the role secular history has played.

 

[Stripe]

As if you'll get everyone to agree with you if you just say it enough times.

The bible does in fact say "Six days".

Well Adam didn't die on that literal 24 hour day now did he? I guess the Bible's all wrong. Because it said THAT DAY and it didn't happen.

Ah-hah. A new argument. Does this mean you've given up the "it's poetry" one?

 

[Desert Reign]

Ah, great. Another "it's poetry therefore it isn't history" argument.

There isn't an argument about this. As I said, it is history but it's not a history in the way modern geologists and biologists understand it. It can't be because such concerns did not exist when this book was written. It's not because it's poetry or because it's allegory or because it's metaphor or something else. It's because it can't have been geology and it can't have been biology.

 

[Alate_One]

The bible does in fact say "Six days".

It also refers to the sky having windows, the sun standing still and stars falling to the earth. You'll take those as figurative in a heartbeat, even though they're probably not intended that way. You do this using extra-biblical knowledge. I just do it with one more passage than you do. You act as if I'm doing something terrible when it is the very thing you do.

Ah-hah. A new argument. Does this mean you've given up the "it's poetry" one?

See what Desert Reign just said.

 

[Stripe]

There isn't an argument about this. As I said, it is history but it's not a history in the way modern geologists and biologists understand it. It can't be because such concerns did not exist when this book was written. It's not because it's poetry or because it's allegory or because it's metaphor or something else. It's because it can't have been geology and it can't have been biology.

You have to give a good reason why it cannot be history. If you're not saying it isn't a description of history, then we have no argument.

 

[Nick M]

Still no good reason from you. Bible still says "Six days".

And the day is clearly defined. Therefore, we know exactly what God means.

 

[Stripe]

And the day is clearly defined. Therefore, we know exactly what God means.

Why would anyone want to say anything else?

It's truly bizarre! :dizzy:

 

[Desert Reign]

You have to give a good reason why it cannot be history. If you're not saying it isn't a description of history, then we have no argument.

Did you read what I said? I agree with you - it is history. Evolution is a history of taxonomy and geology is a history of earth movements. Genesis 1 is a history of how and why God made the world. They are all history. I am glad you agree with me after all.

 

[kmoney]

Beginning a scientific discussion just allows hiding places for the evolutionist from his irrational stance.

What irrational stance?

The evolutionist must first give a rational explanation for the existence of Genesis. Either they reject the clear teaching of Genesis or they give up evolutionism.

I don't believe the matter isn't as simple as you make it. When you say they have to either reject the clear teaching of Genesis or reject evolution you are making an assumption on what exactly the author was trying to teach with the Genesis account. That's the point some are trying to make. Was the account historical? Yes, even if it was written in a poetic way. Were the days actual days instead of some other period of time? Yes. But the author wasn't writing a historical or scientific account in the way we think of it. Literary, generic, and cultural analysis are relevant here.

Allowing them a vague and malleable syncretism leads to nonsense when going on to discuss the science related matters.

What nonsense?

How many people leave Christianity because they are lured away by the masses preaching evolutionism and have no grounding in Real Science inspired from the bible?

Your question is irrelevant.

Irrelevant to what?

 

[resurrected]

It's because it can't have been geology and it can't have been biology.

It can't have been geology as geologic processes are understood today. But why would one expect today's processes to be those used by God in His creation?

And if it can't have been biology for the same reasons, then the same must be said of the resurrection.

It also refers to the sky having windows, the sun standing still and stars falling to the earth.

What is a window? Isn't it an opening in a wall or barrier?

Stars falling to earth?

Didn't that happen just the other day in Russia?

 

[Stripe]

Did you read what I said? I agree with you - it is history.

Great. :up:

Evolution is a history of taxonomy

Uh... :nono:

You can't call both Genesis and evolution history. They are mutually exclusive.

What irrational stance?

:AMR:

Did you just read one line?

I don't believe the matter isn't as simple as you make it.

It actually really is.

The bible says "Six days". If you want to insist it doesn't mean what it says you have to show good reason. If you cannot you should choose to either accept the plain teaching of the bible or choose to reject it.

Rabbiting on about poetry when that reason has been shown dead in the water is irrational.

When you say they have to either reject the clear teaching of Genesis or reject evolution you are making an assumption on what exactly the author was trying to teach with the Genesis account

No. The bible really does say "Six days". No assumption.

That's the point some are trying to make.

Points need to be supported by evidence and good reason.

Was the account historical? Yes, even if it was written in a poetic way. Were the days actual days instead of some other period of time? Yes. But the author wasn't writing a historical or scientific account in the way we think of it. Literary, generic, and cultural analysis are relevant here.

I think you have no idea what you're saying.

 

[Desert Reign]

Great. :up:

Uh... :nono:

You can't call both Genesis and evolution history. They are mutually exclusive.

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.

 

[resurrected]

So do I. When he said six days, he really meant you are a troll. That makes about the same sense.



I am not sore, not even after the run.



How so? When you mocked an easy target knowing you do the same thing? Get real.



Because you are a liberal hypcrite. Duh.

Nick, Nick, Nick :nono:


Thou shalt not criticize the Town thy Better

 

[Alate_One]

It can't have been geology as geologic processes are understood today. But why would one expect today's processes to be those used by God in His creation?

Because he used those processes to bring Christ into adulthood. He used historical processes to create the Israelite people.

What is a window? Isn't it an opening in a wall or barrier?

Is the sky like a barrier or wall?

Stars falling to earth?

Didn't that happen just the other day in Russia?

If you think that was a star, I have some hot wheels racers you can drive to work.

 

[zippy2006]

Commiting to Genesis' historical view means we commit to the norms of nature as God so made it, thus there is no negotiation when it comes to what "male", "female", "be fruitful and multiply", "work", "Sabbath", and so much more really means.

If you don't take the cosmology, then you are not reading Genesis as a literal historical account. You seem to be picking and choosing with no consistent criteria.

 

[noguru]

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.

Stripe's head is like a brick wall. You cannot have a productive discussion with a brick wall.

Let him be unreasonable with his opinions. See how far that gets him. :think:

 

[resurrected]

Because he used those processes to bring Christ into adulthood.

God used geologic processes to bring Christ into adulthood? :freak:

Is the sky like a barrier or wall?

It better be. Google UV radiation, vacuum of space...

If you think that was a star, I have some hot wheels racers you can drive to work.

you're using a modern definition of "star"

What do you suppose the Hebrews understood a star to be?

 

[noguru]

God used geologic processes to bring Christ into adulthood? :freak:



It better be. Google UV radiation, vacuum of space...



you're using a modern definition of "star"

What do you suppose the Hebrews understood a star to be?

:shocked:

Well they certainly had them confused with planets, because the morning star is actually a planet, doofus.

 

[resurrected]

:mock:noguru, who thinks planets fall to earth