Young Earth Creationism and the Da Vinci code

Status
Not open for further replies.

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟27,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Everyday to rmwilliamsll said:
My question to you is: Do you have any problem in defining what each term "day" means?
Gen 2:4These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.
This seems to be referring to the previous six days, though I have heard YECs argue for 1 day (I could never figure out how) or three days. That leaves us with a choice of interpretations of one day, three days, six days, or if the six days are ages, an even bigger age covering all six, the 14.7 billion year history of the universe.

Gen 2:17but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die. One day? Or as the early church interpreted it, a thousand years (930 actually taken from Psalm 90:4 and Adam age was when he actually died) because as we all know Adam didn't actually die the days he ate the fruit. Or how about purely figurative, the same as the snake wasn't actually a snake.

That leaves the seventh day which the writer of Hebrews tell us is still going on, the first six days whose literalness Christians have been wondering about for most of its 2000 years, and lastly the first half of Gen 1:5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night, which I think every one agrees refers to a twelve hour day.

Assyrian



 
Upvote 0

shinbits

Well-Known Member
Dec 4, 2005
12,243
299
42
New York
✟14,001.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Assyrian said:

Exactly, just like the six days is a figurative way of recounting a literal event the creation. Like the 'mighty hand and outstretched arm' description in Deuteronomy, the Sabbath command in Exodus is wrapped in an anthropomorphic metaphor describing God as a weary labourer resting after six days toil and being refreshed.

Okay, here's the magic question; what basis do u have for assuming that the creation is poetically told? We know that "mighty and outstreched arm" is poetic---but how do u know the creation is? What do u base this on?
 
Upvote 0

rmwilliamsll

avid reader
Mar 19, 2004
6,006
334
✟7,946.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
shinbits said:
Okay, here's the magic question; what basis do u have for assuming that the creation is poetically told? We know that "mighty and outstreched arm" is poetic---but how do u know the creation is? What do u base this on?
[/SIZE]

because of the structure. it is like a hymn with a constant refrain running under the verses--it was evening and morning, X day. The structure, the form shapes the content. The form is Creation Week capped by the creation of adam and the Sabbath. Yet when comparing Scripture to Scripture as Gen 1 to Gen 2,3 we see that the constraints of Gen 1 make the two creation stories different. This is a big hint that the structure of Gen 1 has made the order/sequence of the creation week not historical and not modern science. It functions as a preamble to the Treaty of the Great King, the point is that God created all and therefore has the right to do as He pleases with the creation. The structure of the two triads, demonstrating providential care is yet another big hint that the order is not the point, the character of God is.
 
Upvote 0

shinbits

Well-Known Member
Dec 4, 2005
12,243
299
42
New York
✟14,001.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
rmwilliamsll said:
because of the structure. it is like a hymn with a constant refrain running under the verses--it was evening and morning, X day. The structure, the form shapes the content. The form is Creation Week capped by the creation of adam and the Sabbath. Yet when comparing Scripture to Scripture as Gen 1 to Gen 2,3 we see that the constraints of Gen 1 make the two creation stories different. This is a big hint that the structure of Gen 1 has made the order/sequence of the creation week not historical and not modern science. It functions as a preamble to the Treaty of the Great King, the point is that God created all and therefore has the right to do as He pleases with the creation. The structure of the two triads, demonstrating providential care is yet another big hint that the order is not the point, the character of God is.
So, based on it's structure, rather then it's wording, you conclude that it's allegorical?
 
Upvote 0

rmwilliamsll

avid reader
Mar 19, 2004
6,006
334
✟7,946.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
shinbits said:
So, based on it's structure, rather then it's wording, you conclude that it's allegorical?

Allegorical, like myth is a heavily loaded term in our culture. Too often here it simply is translated in people's minds into the word "false", because our culture is so interested in logos="true".

What are people trying to communicate when they use the term "myth"? Primarily that meaning and significance are the important elements of the narrative, detail and historical accuracy are not.

Allegory is a similiar term, loaded with extraneous emotional overtones. I'm writing a Sunday School class based on the allegory of the Good Samaritan, to prepare for it i'm reading Pilgrim's Progress. Now everywhere i read in the Scriptures i see the metaphor of being a pilgrim, of being a stranger in a stranger land, an alien just passing through.

Is Gen 1 an allegory? It is certainly an anthropomorphic extended metaphor where the purpose, form and structure shape the material so that it is not in a historical order (the sun was not created after the light, the point is that the sun rules and is the light bearer as the birds rule the sky and the fish rule in the sea, create the kingdom and fill it)

The point of an allegory is to draw a series of sustained parallels between the narrative and the reader's life. this is exactly what Gen 1 is: God's Creation Week is to be the pattern of the covenant community. Our work week is to recapitulate, to rediscover God's work, our Sabbath is to rest in God as He rested this Creation Week. So yes, the narrative in Gen 1 is an allegory, the parallels are what is important, not the details, the long seen hint that the sun is created after light points us in that direction.

But more importantly for this conversation, the reading of the Book of Nature helps us understand what God intends for us to take home from Gen 1. It is not in scientific order, you can not push modern science into the Creation Week, this is H.Ross's failing point. The order is teaching something else.
 
Upvote 0

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
43
Cambridge
Visit site
✟32,287.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
shinbits said:
So, based on it's structure, rather then it's wording, you conclude that it's allegorical?

It's not an either/or sort of thing. Take Revelation, for example. It is clearly a certain form of poetry, not only because it is full of strange images that would have been significant to a first/second century reader, but because of its form. Seven Churches, seven scrolls, seven censers, seven bowls, etc. In form, it looks like poetry. Much of this is retained, even in the English.

Both form and wording need to be used to determine the type of literature of any text. There are Pslams that don't use any unusual metaphorical language, but they are still poetry and should be read as such.
 
Upvote 0

chaoschristian

Well-Known Member
Dec 22, 2005
7,436
352
✟9,379.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Revelation isn't so much poetry as certain parts of it are poetic. The actual genre is the apocalyptic. That genre is defined by the heavy use of poetic images, metaphor, repition, numerology and references to past pieces of authoritative text.

John's apocalypse is absolutely depedent upon the reader knowing all of the references and clues in order to understand its meaning. References and clues that would have been easily received and understood by its original, intended audience.

A straight reading of that text is catastrophic.
 
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟27,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
shinbits said:
Okay, here's the magic question; what basis do u have for assuming that the creation is poetically told? We know that "mighty and outstreched arm" is poetic---but how do u know the creation is? What do u base this on?[/size]
You quoted Exodus 20:11 to try to show creation as a literal event, presumably a six day creation as literal because we all agree creation happened.

Now your six days in Exodus are slap in he middle of an anthropomorphic metaphor where God describes himself in human terms a weary labourer who has who has put in six hard days work, the parallel commandment in Deut uses anthropomorphic metaphor to illustrate the Sabbath command. You said:

There are other places in the Bible that refer back to the creation as a literal event.

Creation? Or a literal six day creation? Does the literal six day creationist interpretation have any other support in scripture?

Assyrian
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
Assyrian said:
Gen 2:4These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.
This seems to be referring to the previous six days, though I have heard YECs argue for 1 day (I could never figure out how) or three days. That leaves us with a choice of interpretations of one day, three days, six days, or if the six days are ages, an even bigger age covering all six, the 14.7 billion year history of the universe.

Another possibility is the Documentary Theory. When you remember there was no punctuation in the original Hebrew, it is easy to see how the first sentence of the second creation account became tacked onto the final sentence of the first creation account.

If those who have analysed the text via the Documentary theory are correct, Genesis 2:3-5 should be punctuated as follows:

So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it God rested from all the work he had done in creation. These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created.
################

In the day that YHWH God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up.....
*

The second account never mentions any day but the one alluded to in its first sentence. From this point to the end of chapter 3 is apparently all one day. If it is more, that fact is not mentioned.

Furthermore, according to those who consider the Documentary Thesis in some form to be the best description of the formation of the Torah, this second account was actually written a good 2-3 centuries before the Gen. 1-2:4a account.

So it would seem that the earliest Hebrew creation story knows nothing of the 6-day sequence.

*The differing colours indicate two different human authors.
 
Upvote 0

jereth

Senior Member
Apr 13, 2006
560
41
Melbourne, Australia
✟8,426.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
gluadys said:
Another possibility is the Documentary Theory. When you remember there was no punctuation in the original Hebrew, it is easy to see how the first sentence of the second creation account became tacked onto the final sentence of the first creation account.

Even without the documentary theory, it is glaringly obvious that Gen 1:1-2:3 and Gen 2:4ff. are totally separate sections. A single author -- Moses, even -- could certainly have written 2 independent stories at different times, and later on combined them together. I say this because YECists usually scorn the documentary theory as liberal rubbish.

Modern literature has many examples of "collected short stories", all by one author, but written independently of each other.

The second account never mentions any day but the one alluded to in its first sentence. From this point to the end of chapter 3 is apparently all one day. If it is more, that fact is not mentioned.

Yes. In fact, we see the day ending when "the LORD God walked in the garden in the cool of the day". This is the evening of one single day, in which man was created, the garden was planted, the animals and birds were created, the woman was created, the serpent tempted Eve to sin, Adam ate the fruit, and God pronouced judgment.

I have a question for the literalists. The last verse of Genesis 2 leads directly into the first verse of Genesis 3. So where does the sabbath (i.e. the seventh day of creation week) fit in? Did Adam and Eve sin on the sabbath day itself? Or did they sin at the end of Day 6, so that the world was already corrupt during the sabbath? Please explain what you think about this, I see it as an area of major difficulty for your position.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

shinbits

Well-Known Member
Dec 4, 2005
12,243
299
42
New York
✟14,001.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Willtor said:
for example. It is clearly a certain form of poetry, not only because it is full of strange images that would have been significant to a first/second century reader, but because of its form. Seven Churches, seven scrolls, seven censers, seven bowls, etc. In form, it looks like poetry. Much of this is retained, even in the English.
It is clear from John's inability to understand certain events that indirect language is used. In fact, John even asks several times, "what does this mean?" In other words, Revelation makes it completly obvious that it is using symbolic language.

Such is not the case for the beginning of Genesis. There's no indication from the Bible itself that Genesis is using figurative language for the creation account.

There are Pslams that don't use any unusual metaphorical language, but they are still poetry and should be read as such.
There are psalms which are prophetical, and even re-quoted as such in the Gospels, at different times when the desciples remember the scripture as they are actually living the event.

The prophesies in psalms are not to be taken as simple poetics.
 
Upvote 0

shinbits

Well-Known Member
Dec 4, 2005
12,243
299
42
New York
✟14,001.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Assyrian said:
You quoted Exodus 20:11 to try to show creation as a literal event, presumably a six day creation as literal because we all agree creation happened.

Now your six days in Exodus are slap in he middle of an anthropomorphic metaphor where God describes himself in human terms a weary labourer who has who has put in six hard days work
Use of metaphors does NOT make the entire idea a metaphor. If some described a busy metropolitan area as having a "sea of people", that doesn't mean that there weren't people there, or that there were a lot of people.

The same goes for the fact of the poetic language used when God "slapped" in an anthropomorphic metaphor. It doesn't make the six day creation a metaphor, simply because there's a metaphor used in the sentence.
 
Upvote 0

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
43
Cambridge
Visit site
✟32,287.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
shinbits said:
It is clear from John's inability to understand certain events that indirect language is used. In fact, John even asks several times, "what does this mean?" In other words, Revelation makes it completly obvious that it is using symbolic language.

Such is not the case for the beginning of Genesis. There's no indication from the Bible itself that Genesis is using figurative language for the creation account.

There are psalms which are prophetical, and even re-quoted as such in the Gospels, at different times when the desciples remember the scripture as they are actually living the event.

The prophesies in psalms are not to be taken as simple poetics.

Nothing in the Psalms is to be taken as "simple poetics." That's the point. Poetry is at least as good a vessel for truth as narrative. Maybe my hypothetical future is not so far off.
 
Upvote 0

shinbits

Well-Known Member
Dec 4, 2005
12,243
299
42
New York
✟14,001.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Willtor said:
Nothing in the Psalms is to be taken as "simple poetics." That's the point. Poetry is at least as good a vessel for truth as narrative. Maybe my hypothetical future is not so far off.
This is true; but the point was, that just because poetic language is used, that doesn't make the entire idea poetic; like when Exodus mentions the six day creation along with with a use of poetic imagery.

The metaphors used do not make the six day creation a metaphor.
 
Upvote 0

rmwilliamsll

avid reader
Mar 19, 2004
6,006
334
✟7,946.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
You quoted Exodus 20:11 to try to show creation as a literal event, presumably a six day creation as literal because we all agree creation happened.

Now your six days in Exodus are slap in he middle of an anthropomorphic metaphor where God describes himself in human terms a weary labourer who has who has put in six hard days work

shinbits said:
Use of metaphors does NOT make the entire idea a metaphor. If some described a busy metropolitan area as having a "sea of people", that doesn't mean that there weren't people there, or that there were a lot of people.

The same goes for the fact of the poetic language used when God "slapped" in an anthropomorphic metaphor. It doesn't make the six day creation a metaphor, simply because there's a metaphor used in the sentence.


You are missing the point, the Creation Week is itself a grand metaphor. It is analogous to the metaphor of the heavenly temple being mirrored in the earthly temple.

Creation Week is to the Sabbath Week
as
The Heavenly Temple was to the Temple in Jerusalem.

it is a model, a pattern, an archtype.
one in time, one in space.
why?
because we can not understand heavenly things without anthropomorphic analogies to the world that we can see.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
43
Cambridge
Visit site
✟32,287.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
shinbits said:
This is true; but the point was, that just because poetic language is used, that doesn't make the entire idea poetic; like when Exodus mentions the six day creation along with with a use of poetic imagery.

The metaphors used do not make the six day creation a metaphor.

No, you're absolutely right. In the case of the creation account, in fact, the ancient readers wouldn't have understood a distinction between a figurative look at the past and a factual one. Thus, the question is what do we do, given that our society makes the distinction? Some of the TE's think that Adam was a factual historical figure, but I don't think any of us think his name was actually, "Adam." If we ask what his name really was, we're asking the wrong question of the text.

Suppose, however, we had a means of determining his name? Would it be seen as an affront to the Bible in particular, and Christianity in general? Probably, by some. Of course, it couldn't possibly be so in reality. The problem is that some people would think that it undermines the authority of Scripture because it speaks to something the Scriptures speak to, as well, and disputes a point of fact. If the Bible is wrong about Adam's name, what else is it wrong about? The obvious response is that it wasn't wrong. It simply wasn't trying to say what it is being made to say.

But, as I said, yes, the form of the text is not the only factor in its interpretation. It is one of many.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
Everyday said:
gluadys,

Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. It requires a prior assumption that the narrative is historical. It may also require a prior assumption that TE requires a Day-Age perspective. This is not the case.
I find that ironic. The evolutionist uses the argument that creationists have been using for ages (namely, the data must be interpreted by underlying beliefs or presuppositions) to discredit my position, while at the same time stating that this does not apply to the theistic evolution.

Did you ever pass reading comprehension? That is not what I said at all. I said the argument you are using is an example of circular reasoning. You begin by assuming that what you want to prove is true.

That is not acceptable reasoning for either YECist or TEs or for anyone who claims to be using logic.

I hope that you can see the foolishness in your statement. You can't have it both ways. .

Is it foolish to note circular reasoning as a flaw in an argument?


Either it is true for all readings of Genesis or it is not true for either, in which case you must provide evidence to prove your opinion.

I don't know what "it" here refers to. What must be true for all readings of Genesis?


As a TE, I agree entirely with what you have said about the use of "yom" in the Hebrew narrative. But I do not agree that this requires the narrative to be historical. The author does intend to convey the sense of 6 (actually 7) 24 hour days. But the days can still be a literary device for presenting creation in an ordered fashion and as providing a basis in creation for the Sabbath. They need not be days in history.

If the basis for the Sabbath is false, then what authority is there for the Sabbath?

Here again we are dealing with your presupposition---not mine or that of other TEs. It is your pre-supposition that if the days of Gen. 1 are narrative days (days in the framework of a story) rather than factual historical days that the basis for the Sabbath is false.

Did I say that? Did I make that claim? Do I believe that?

No, no and no.

I believe the story--as story--IS the authoritative basis for the Sabbath and that we do not need any other basis than the inspired text.

Why do you assume that if the story is not historical it is necessarily false?


God would then be lying because he says specifically in Exodus 20:11 that since I worked for six days, then so to shall you.

On what basis would that be a lie? Only on the basis that Gen. 1 is a lie. But that takes us back to your pre-supposition that if the story is not history it is a lie. If the story is not a lie---and I hold that it is not---then it is not a lie when it is repeated in Exodus either.

In other words, the very fact that God worked for six literal days and rested on the seventh is the whole justification for Him commanding mankind to do the same! If God worked for millions of years and rested for a few million years, then He is lying by saying that He worked for six.

Your conclusion is based solely on your pre-supposition that only actual history is true. And that is the basis of your circular reasoning. Because you pre-suppose that only actual history is true and then pre-suppose that Genesis is true, you have to conclude that Genesis--including the creation account must be historical fact. Otherwise it can't be true.

I don't accept your first pre-supposition. I hold it to be a modernist heresy generated by atheistic scientism. I do not know of anyone other than atheists and YECists who want hamstring the definition of truth in this way.

I grant that historical fact is a subset of truth. I do not grant that everything outside of the bounds of historical fact is not true.



What I believe the author was saying, is when can you trust the Bible if you believe that parts of the Bible is just symbolic stories? How do you when a story is a symbol or metaphorical and when the author is actually trying to convey truth?

That's simple. The author is always actually trying to convey truth--sometimes through a report on historical events, sometimes (more often in fact) through symbolic stories. The denigrating adjective "just" is designed to make you accept that symbolic stories are either not true or not an acceptable way to convey truth. Do you think the author can show that God agrees with his low opinion of symbolic stories?





How do you know what the Bible means if the basic in-context interpretation of Scripture may not be literal and historical? It's just like approaching a stop sign and wondering what it means!

Bad example, since a stop sign is a symbol and its meaning is apparent even without the word "stop" written on it.

One thing you are forgetting is that before the modern equation of truth with "fact and only fact" existed, most people incorporated truth in symbols and knew what the symbols meant. Even today, a Catholic or Orthodox Christian will know the symbology of the saints and can quickly tell a portrait of Peter from Paul, Nicolas from Dominic, or Teresa from Catherine by the symbols associated with them. It is we who have forgotten how to interpret ancient symbolism.

It is actually very logical. The only reason why you do not understand is because your religious faith in evolution has literally blinded you,

Actually I rejected the historico-literal approach to the creation stories more than a decade before I looked at evolution and on grounds that have nothing to do with evolution. Perhaps it was because I had already rejected what I consider an inferior way of reading scripture, that I was not driven to atheism by my discovery of evolution as so many raised in YEC beliefs are. My faith did not depend on the six days of creation being literal historical fact, so was not shaken by how old the earth and humanity are.

And I don't need to have faith in evolution. I reserve that for Jesus Christ. For evolution, the evidence is sufficient.

]Actually, those points brought up by CMI are very reliable and not PRATTS as you falsely assert. If they are, then please give an example of where they are wrong.

Ok. Helium escape. I read both the popular and semi-technical account. Typically, what they do is omit crucial information. IOW, there is nothing wrong with the information in those articles. But the information is incomplete. Here is the short rebuttal from the Index of Creationist Claims.

Thermal escape of helium alone is not enough to account for its scarcity in the atmosphere, but helium in the atmosphere also gets ionized and follows the earth's magnetic field lines. When ion outflow is considered, the escape of helium from the atmosphere balances its production from radioactive elements (Lie-Svendsen and Rees 1996).​

Here is the complete reference:

Lie-Svendsen, O. and M. H. Rees, 1996. Helium escape from the terrestrial atmosphere - the ion outflow mechanism. Journal of Geophysical Research 101: 2435-2443.

I would have preferred to find an example in the realm of biological evolution, as that is really what the dispute is about. But while I found a few articles, they were so rhetorical that I found nothing explicit enough to comment on.


We both have the same evidence. Right? That is, we both have the same rocks, the same stars, the same fossils, and so on. We also both use the same science. Would you not concur?

No. Potentially we have the same evidence. But science uses all the evidence. Creationist sites cherry-pick which evidence they will use and do not admit the existence of the rest of the evidence. So in fact, both do not have the same evidence to begin with.

Also, both do not use the same science. Scientists use the complete scientific method which includes testing hypothesis and predictions drawn from these hypotheses. Creationist sites generally stop at formulating speculative hypotheses, many of which cannot be tested. Once they have an ad hoc hypothesis which they think could explain a phenomenon, they stop there. So, in fact, both do not use the same science.


Why do creationists and evolutionists reach totally different conclusions? If we both use the same science and both have the same physical evidence and observations, why do we reach different conclusions? Obviously, since both of the above are the same, there must be a third varrible in this equation. Any ideas on what that is?

See above.

Actually, you really have no idea on the nature of the evidence and of science, do you?

I expect I have a much more complete idea of the evidence and of science than you do.


Firstly, you assert that the evidence "proves" a particular position

Please provide the citation where I made this assertion. I have often reproved creationists for looking to science for proof rather than for evidence.

Evidence, however, can often be explained by only one possible cause. The purpose of scientific investigation of any observation is to eliminate as many natural causes as possible. When only a single cause is not falsified, it is assumed to be true pending additional observation.


Secondly, you also assume that evolutionists do not have any presupposition or underlying beliefs, which is once again false as shown above.

Science is a public activity precisely because scientists have presuppositions and underlying beliefs. What those presuppositions and beliefs are is irrelevant, because the public nature of science--the pursuit of science by many participants--tests out the results and shows whether or not the results have been biased by pre-suppositions and underlying beliefs or whether they remain valid when tested by others who do not share the presuppositions of the primary researcher.

Thirdly, they are only unconvincing to you [evolutionists] because your underlying belief system tells you that the earth is not young and that anything which challenges your view is "lies." This is not an example of an open-minded person.

So explain why the Christian researchers of the 18th and 19th centuries who did pre-suppose a young earth were converted to the opposite conclusion by their geological research.

Fourthly, you give me a link to an evolutionary website (with a clear subjective bias) who is known to distort the facts to favour their religious belief in evolution, for example, they falsely assert that 3rd stage SNRs (Super Nova Remnants) exist in this galaxy, while observational evidence declares that not one has been observed.

Not my field, but I take it this is the claim (from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/supernova/)

A brief reading of the relevant literature reveals the following Galactic SNRs that are in the radiative phase (and there are others):

G69.0 + 2.7 (Sarfi-Harb & Ogelman 1995).
G166.2 + 2.5 (Routledge et al. 1986).
G180.0 - 1.7 (Furst & Reich 1986).
G189.1 + 3.0 (Oliva et al. 1999).
G279.0 + 1.1 (Duncan et al. 1995).
G290.1 - 0.8 (Rosado et al. 1996)​

If you want to find the information in the primary literature that establishes either that these Type III SNRs were not observed or were mis-identified, be my guest.

I'm sorry, but I can't trust any information from Talk Origins, not because I think their interpretation of the evidence is wrong, but because of how they lied in that example- by saying that there were observed third stage SNRs when observation informs us that there is none.

First, you have to establish that they did lie--not just once, but six times--and that the astronomers that they relied on also lied.

Besides that, hardly any of their staff have any Ph.Ds in the fields to which they report about. At least, they didn't the last time I was there. I might as well get information from Wikipedia then...

You don't have to believe talkorigins. But they do cite their references, so you can check out whether what they have posted fairly reflects what the PhDs in the field are saying. If you can show there is a serious and consistent discrepancy between what they are saying and what the primary researchers are saying, you have a case.
 
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟27,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
jereth said:
Even without the documentary theory, it is glaringly obvious that Gen 1:1-2:3 and Gen 2:4ff. are totally separate sections. A single author -- Moses, even -- could certainly have written 2 independent stories at different times, and later on combined them together. I say this because YECists usually scorn the documentary theory as liberal rubbish.

Modern literature has many examples of "collected short stories", all by one author, but written independently of each other.
I have found some YECs are open to Moses being the compiler of much more ancient documents that form Genesis, though some say he wrote the whole lot. Some even insist there is just a single creation account in Gen 1-3 :scratch:

gluadys said:
Another possibility is the Documentary Theory. When you remember there was no punctuation in the original Hebrew, it is easy to see how the first sentence of the second creation account became tacked onto the final sentence of the first creation account.

If those who have analysed the text via the Documentary theory are correct, Genesis 2:3-5 should be punctuated as follows:

So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it God rested from all the work he had done in creation. These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created.
################
In the day that YHWH God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up.....
*
The second account never mentions any day but the one alluded to in its first sentence. From this point to the end of chapter 3 is apparently all one day. If it is more, that fact is not mentioned.

Furthermore, according to those who consider the Documentary Thesis in some form to be the best description of the formation of the Torah, this second account was actually written a good 2-3 centuries before the Gen. 1-2:4a account.

So it would seem that the earliest Hebrew creation story knows nothing of the 6-day sequence.
*The differing colours indicate two different human authors.
Even without the full blown documentary hypothesis two different accounts are recognisable here, whether written by Moses, compiled by Moses, or cobbled together by a later redactor. Where exactly we place the split between the two accounts is another matter.
We have your suggestion. Or

So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it God rested from all the work he had done in creation. These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created in the day that YHWH God made the earth and the heavens.

When no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up.....

Or

So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it God rested from all the work he had done in creation.

These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created. In the day that YHWH God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up.....


The first question is whether 'these are the generations' refers to the previous account or the following one. This is a big debate with strongly held views. If it refers to Gen 2-3 then 'in the day' covers the creation of the heavens and the earth up to the creation of plant life, or of man, 3 to 6 days. Certainly God had already created land, which happened on the third day.

If 'these are the generations' refers back then 'in the day' may belong to it and refers to Gen 1 and covers 6 or 7 days. (Does it include the seventh? It seems to.)

If 'in the day' is the start of the next account then as we have seen it covers 3 to 6 days.

shinbits said:
Use of metaphors does NOT make the entire idea a metaphor. If some described a busy metropolitan area as having a "sea of people", that doesn't mean that there weren't people there, or that there were a lot of people.

The same goes for the fact of the poetic language used when God "slapped" in an anthropomorphic metaphor. It doesn't make the six day creation a metaphor, simply because there's a metaphor used in the sentence.
If they said a girl was looking for a safe haven in the sea of people, does this mean she was searching local harbour authority? I didn't say God 'slapped in an anthropomorphic metaphor'. God used an anthropomorphic metaphor and your six days are 'slap in the middle of it'. As the six days are an integral part of the 'weary labourer' metaphor you have no basis to say the days were literal.

So is there anywhere in the bible that supports a literal six day interpretation of Genesis, instead of just supporting creation?

Assyrian
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

jereth

Senior Member
Apr 13, 2006
560
41
Melbourne, Australia
✟8,426.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Assyrian said:
I have found some YECs are open to Moses being the compiler of much more ancient documents that form Genesis,

Don't get me started again on the tablet theory, my friend! ^_^

Some even insist there is just a single creation account in Gen 1-3 :scratch:

With all due respect, they must be fairly illiterate.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.