Evolution vs. Theology

[Assyrian]

You keep arguing about Adam and whether God willed Adam to sin. This is not about that. It is about God's will and purpose from before the foundation of the world, foreknowing we would sin, for Christ to die to redeem us. I notice you left out the verse I quoted, but there a plenty of others showing it was God's purpose from before he ever created the world, to redeem us in Christ.

Are you saying then that it was God's will for Adam to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good/evil? Because that seems to be what you're saying.

If that is what you are claiming, then it would make no sense for God to expressly command Adam not to eat of the tree.

An interesting topic for discussion, and perhaps we could look at it after you deal with the point I brought up, not whether it was God's will for Adam to sin, but whether it was God's will and purpose from before the creation of the world, for Christ to die for us.

Unless of course you are willing to concede this point, and admit that death, was part of God's plan and purpose for creation from before the foundation of the world

Salvation by obedience. And it does seem like Plan A, since it's the first gospel we were ever given

I don't think the bible every describes 'don't eat that fruit' as a gospel. A covenant perhaps, and one with deadly consequences for failure. The Gospel is a promise of life, Genesis 2:17 was a promise of death, just like Mosaic Law.

2Cor 3:9 For if there was glory in the ministry of condemnation, the ministry of righteousness must far exceed it in glory.

Heb 8:6 But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises.

The gospel is so much better than salvation by works which creationists seem to think was God's original purpose.

I'm sorry but I'm not following your line of reasoning. Satan was not originally a part of this created cosmos, as Satan is a spirit. Satan belongs to a realm outside of this cosmos. No-one knows when Satan fell - it could have been eons before this cosmos was created. Satan, a spirit, possessed a physical animal at the beginning. This does not mean that God created Satan fallen or anything of the sort.

I am not saying God created Satan fallen. I am saying the opposite, that he was originally good and became corrupted when he fell. It is not where or when you think Satan was created that matters but the fact that he was created good.

If Satan was originally good and created by God, then you can't say, just because the devil now has the power of death, that God could not originally have created death as an intrinsic part of his good creation

 

[Assyrian]

I think it's just common sense.

Nothing common sense about it. Evening and morning (or more literally dawn) are short periods of twilight. They do not add up to 24 hours. But then the text was never meant as a mathematical equation. Creationists like the idea because "evening plus morning equals one day" sounds like is defining the days in Genesis mathematically a literal 24 hour days. It is not what the text is saying at all.

I am trying to get Mark to back up this phrase which he used twice in this thread, but he can't.

Incidentally, whenever "day" is defined by 1, 2, 3, 4, etc., in Scripture, it is talking about a literal day.

Have you looked up all the references yourself or are you just repeating what you have heard from other Creationist? It isn't true, and even if it were and all the other references were literal days, it wouldn't mean Genesis had to be literal. Language doesn't work that way. Literal usage in other passages doesn't restrict the use of language in metaphorical passages. Do you think the Jesus, when he told a parable, had to go through all the other times a phrase had been used to see if it had only ever been used literally?

 

[Achilles6129]

All true, what I have wondered about is whether or not righteousness could still be considered by grace through faith. Sin is not so much the presence of something like an offense or a misdeed, it's the absence of righteousness. Adam was innocent until he disobeyed but was he righteous? I think it's safe to say that Adam wasn't trusting God when he ate the forbidden fruit. I also think it's obvious that righteousness is a communicable attribute of God that can only come from God.

What I've been seriously wondering, even though it's probably of no great significance, is whether righteousness would still be a free gift. I think the larger question that I'm considering is was Adam righteous before the fall or just what they call blameless or innocent.

Just food for thought.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Yes, Adam was righteous. He was made in the image of God and hence made good by God. When he ate of the tree of knowledge of good/evil he became evil.

 

[Achilles6129]

An interesting topic for discussion, and perhaps we could look at it after you deal with the point I brought up, not whether it was God's will for Adam to sin, but whether it was God's will and purpose from before the creation of the world, for Christ to die for us.

I would say not, since he did not command Adam to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good/evil. Foreknowledge is different than wanting something to happen.

Unless of course you are willing to concede this point, and admit that death, was part of God's plan and purpose for creation from before the foundation of the world

Heavens no! If he wanted death to occur he would have commanded Adam to eat of tree. He commanded him not to b/c death for Adam was never his will - he wanted him to live forever.

I don't think the bible every describes 'don't eat that fruit' as a gospel. A covenant perhaps, and one with deadly consequences for failure. The Gospel is a promise of life, Genesis 2:17 was a promise of death, just like Mosaic Law.

I was talking about Judaism.

I am not saying God created Satan fallen. I am saying the opposite, that he was originally good and became corrupted when he fell. It is not where or when you think Satan was created that matters but the fact that he was created good.

And how woul that have any bearing on this discussion?

If Satan was originally good and created by God, then you can't say, just because the devil now has the power of death, that God could not originally have created death as an intrinsic part of his good creation

Why not? He fell after God made him good!

 

[Achilles6129]

Nothing common sense about it. Evening and morning (or more literally dawn) are short periods of twilight. They do not add up to 24 hours. But then the text was never meant as a mathematical equation. Creationists like the idea because "evening plus morning equals one day" sounds like is defining the days in Genesis mathematically a literal 24 hour days. It is not what the text is saying at all.

Day---->evening/morning---Day 2------>evening/morning------> Day 3

Have you looked up all the references yourself or are you just repeating what you have heard from other Creationist? It isn't true, and even if it were and all the other references were literal days, it wouldn't mean Genesis had to be literal. Language doesn't work that way. Literal usage in other passages doesn't restrict the use of language in metaphorical passages. Do you think the Jesus, when he told a parable, had to go through all the other times a phrase had been used to see if it had only ever been used literally?

It's a fact that I have heard other creationists say and something that I am aware of because I have never encountered a passage in Scripture where there is an example of a numbered day being symbolic. If you'd like to show me one I'd be happy to admit that I'm wrong.

 

[mark kennedy]

Day---->evening/morning---Day 2------>evening/morning------> Day 3

He'll just keep arguing it in circles but I don't think the text is ambiguous here.

Yes, Adam was righteous. He was made in the image of God and hence made good by God. When he ate of the tree of knowledge of good/evil he became evil.

I tend to agree but I sometimes wonder if grace through faith doesn't extend back to the beginning. Like I said, it's just food for thought.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Assyrian]

I would say not, since he did not command Adam to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good/evil. Foreknowledge is different than wanting something to happen.

I have already posted a number of verses showing Christ's death was foreordained before the foundation of the world.

Heavens no! If he wanted death to occur he would have commanded Adam to eat of tree. He commanded him not to b/c death for Adam was never his will - he wanted him to live forever.

Or he could simply have created a world where life was mortal from the beginning, just like we see in the fossil record, without having to command Adam to sin.

I was talking about Judaism.

We were talking about salvation by grace versus the creationist view that God's original plan was for Adam to remain in fellowship with God through his own efforts at obeying the law, salvation by works.

And how woul that have any bearing on this discussion?

You thought that the devil having the power of death Heb 2:14, meant that death could not be God's creation. I have show you that the devil was originally God's creation. The verse does not show us that God could not have created death.

Why not? He fell after God made him good!

And death only became a spiritual problem after mankind sinned. 1Cor 15:55 "O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?" 56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.

 

[Assyrian]

Day---->evening/morning---Day 2------>evening/morning------> Day 3

That is still not the equation based definition of day Mark gave us

It means day, it's defined as evening plus morning equals one day.
​

It's a fact that I have heard other creationists say and something that I am aware of because I have never encountered a passage in Scripture where there is an example of a numbered day being symbolic. If you'd like to show me one I'd be happy to admit that I'm wrong.

Hosea 6:2 After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him.

Look at Ezekiel 4&5 where Ezekiel fasts on his side for certain numbers of days. But the meaning of the days are the number of years israel and Judah would b punished. Ezek 4:5 For I assign to you a number of days, 390 days, equal to the number of the years of their punishment. So long shall you bear the punishment of the house of Israel.

Or look at the parable of the labourers in the vineyard, where we have numbered hours. Matt 20:3-6 And going out about the third hour he saw others standing idle in the marketplace... Going out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour, he did the same... And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing. But this is a parable. If days with numbers have to be literal, shouldn't the same thing apply to hours with numbers? Incidentally the parable also mentions day evening and morning.

 

[Assyrian]

He'll just keep arguing it in circles but I don't think the text is ambiguous here.

I'm not going around in circles here mark. I have been asking you the same question, you just kept avoiding it because you don't have an answer. That's all right. We all make mistakes, we hear things that sound good to us at the time and reuse them with out checking them out. Just try not to use the "evening plus morning equals one day" definition again, because you now know you don't have any basis for it.

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm not going around in circles here mark. I have been asking you the same question, you just kept avoiding it because you don't have an answer. That's all right. We all make mistakes, we hear things that sound good to us at the time and reuse them with out checking them out. Just try not to use the "evening plus morning equals one day" definition again, because you now know you don't have any basis for it.

Except that's exactly what it says. I've seen people beg the question of proof before but the way you do it is extra ordinarily pedantic.

 

[Assyrian]

Except that's exactly what it says. I've seen people beg the question of proof before but the way you do it is .

You also claimed it was a definition of day. So I would like to see where in scripture or what Hebrew lexicon you get this definition from. You presented it as an equation "evening plus morning equals one day". That isn't anything like what it says. It says: Gen 1:5 And there was evening and there was morning, one day. Your equation shares three of the words and none of the meaning with the text. At least try an present some attempt at an exegesis drawing that meaning from the text, don't just claim "that's exactly what it says".

This is not just an off the cuff comment you made in passing, you claimed it twice and I have seen other creationists use the phrase too. I'd like to see a basis for the claim, some attempt to defend this creationist argument other than bluster and claiming I am "extra ordinarily pedantic".

 

[mark kennedy]

You also claimed it was a definition of day. So I would like to see where in scripture or what Hebrew lexicon you get this definition from. You presented it as an equation "evening plus morning equals one day". That isn't anything like what it says. It says: Gen 1:5 And there was evening and there was morning, one day. Your equation shares three of the words and none of the meaning with the text. At least try an present some attempt at an exegesis drawing that meaning from the text, don't just claim "that's exactly what it says".

This is not just an off the cuff comment you made in passing, you claimed it twice and I have seen other creationists use the phrase too. I'd like to see a basis for the claim, some attempt to defend this creationist argument other than bluster and claiming I am "extra ordinarily pedantic".

Because it's the truth and it's been qualified and quantified from multiple sources including the clear meaning of the text itself and you just make the same erroneous statement over and over again. You've done this as long as you've been posting here and it's asinine.

You are extra ordinarily pedantic, evening plus morning equals a day, the ordinal designations of the first day, the second day...etc. Lexicons, dictionaries, concordances and just the clear unmitigated, uncomplicated language of the text and you make the same tired, erroneous statements again and again and again.

I don't know what you think your doing but the Abbot and Costello rhetoric isn't working. Get some new material dude, making the same erroneous statement over and over isn't going to make it true, it just reveals something about you.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Papias]

mark wrote:

Originally Posted by Papias

Pretending that definitions can be just made up from hand picked and misinterpreted quotes is certainly closer to "going round and round" than simply using the dictionary. In this case, guess how a rational person finds out what the defintion of "natural selection" is? Yep, by using a "dictionary"!

So your going to play the spam game again.
​

Spam? That's not spam, it's simply pointing out again that there are these books, called "dictionaries", which contain "definitions". So, do you just toss a bunch of insults and words like "spam", "troll", "ad hominem", "fallacious", "round and round", etc, into a hat, and then pick them out at random to write your replies? They sure sound like it.

You ignore the Darwins in your previous definition from the Oxford Dictionary even though your purple definition specifically mentions Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection.

Because, family history is not a definition (even if you are mark quote mining a whole body of literature). Definitions are found in dictionaries.

Yea, that's a pretty standard definition that includes population and environmental changes and other things as factors.

Right. After all, it was found in a .... wait for it ..... dictionary.

...no where in this definition are we seeing the a priori assumption of universal common descent.

Of course not. That's because the "a priori assumption of universal common descent" is something that anyone reading this or other threads can see is something that you, mark, made up yourself. It exists no where except in your own wishful thinking.

As before, if you want a definition, use a dictionary. See above, in orange

I know what it means,

Then why are you consistently acting like a dictionary denier?

what is crucial here is to separate the scientific definition and the a priori assumption you are obsessed with equivocating.

empty insult, wrapped in typical word salad.

Non sequiter. I pointed out that you were now listing additional different definitions. Your insults about reading are irrelevant.

You never established that B does not follow A which means you have yet another flawed argument that never happened.

empty insult, wrapped in typical word salad.

So then why, on this thread, are you going on about me using ad-hominem attacks? Nonetheless, my statement still stands - I'll apologize for any time I've insulted a person.

I apologize that I let it get to this point, if I call you on your fallacious arguments early it guts your arguments and your forced to use actual definitions and substantive resources.

empty insult, wrapped in typical word salad.


​

​

So "dust" is not material?

Of course it is, Adam's life as created 'bara', not the physical frame which is from the earth. The clear language indicates life created 'bara', not a transition from a pre-existing life form like apes.

The clear language shows that pre-existing material was used. That's consistent with a creation process over time, as is specified by common descent.

So the whole creation story rules out life as we know it today, because it doesn't mention cells? The point is that just because the text doesn't detail every step, we both agree there are other details there that are likely due to what the text does say.

True enough, so what?

​

So you can't complain that because the evolutionary transitional forms between "dust" and "adam" aren't detailed in the text, that they didn't happen.

I think we've gone over that before mark, and you claim that God doesn't act through natural laws, which as I and others have pointed out, is unscriptural.

​

I never said he doesn't

You did so, in post #107, in this thread (http://www.christianforums.com/t7791373-11/) where you wrote:

mark wrote:

Excluding miracles does not exclude God acting, as per John 5:17 and Heb 1.

Yes it does.

(because if God did act through natural laws, then excluding miracles would not exclude God). Both Gluadys and I pointed that out, and now you are denying what you said earlier. Well, at least it sounds like you are on the right side of the argument now.

but I'm opposed to the Darwinian version of Christian theism that insists that he must.

Theistic Evolution doesn't insist that He must, only that the evidence shows that He did. Or at least did often. Theistic evolution holds out many options for miracles that are consistent with the evidence, such as God divinely and miraculously making some or all of the many beneficial mutations that are observed.

So do you agree now that you know of at least one (and with Pope Benedict, two) examples of Theistic Evolution supporters warning against modernism?

You didn't answer this question. So there it is again.

​

Theistic Evolution is Modernism.

False. You can see from the defintions in the dictionary that they are not the same. I can post the dictionary defintions if you like.

<B>

​

Modernism: "the critique of our supernatural knowledge according to the false postulates of contemporary philosophy". (Modernism, New Advent. see 'The essential error of Modernism')

​

Wow, you know what that sounds like?

</B>
​

Um, it sounds like saying that there is no God? Did you forget what "philosophy" is? Hint - it's not evidence. another hint - think of "philosophical naturalism".

Theistic Evolution does not differ from Darwinism in any meaningful way.

Sure it does. Darwinsim says nothing about God one way or the other, while Theistic Evolution requires God. I don't know about you, mark, but I find God to be quite meaningful.

If it did you would be subjected to the same ridicule Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents always have been, at least since the late 19th century.

No mark, UCA deniers are ridiculed because they ignore reality. It's as simple as that, as seen in the recent ham-on-nye debate.

The fact that the RC church interprets Genesis in ways compatible with theistic evolution is clear in our whole debate, and as I've pointed out before, is widely recognized by those both inside and outside the church. That's why Pope Benedict made it clear in the document given to you (multiple times) that it is Atheistic versions of evolution/UCA that he is rejecting, not UCA itself.

There is no RCC version, endorsement or acknowledgement of UCA.

Did you just skip the whole commentary on Genesis that I gave, including paragraph #63, which lays out UCA in no uncertain terms (quite literally, since that's where Pope Benedict calls UCA "virtually certain". I can post it again, but do you think seeing it again will help you?

There is an occasional description of the theory of evolution in it's most general terms.

Really - this is "general"?

While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens.
​

Pope Benedict spoke forcefully against Modernism as specifically mentioned hazards and errors that are essential to Theistic Evolution if you read with warnings clearly.

No, he's stated over and over that he's talking about "Atheistic forms" of evolution. You know, that "philosophical naturalism" which I gave the dictionary defintion for.

You know, I've found that simply removing the long strings of insults from your posts makes them much easier to understand, and shortens them a lot.

You could save a lot more time if you would stop trying to refute definitions you are going to have no choice but to agree with.

I don't have to refute words you string together and call "definitions". They refute themselves. I'm sorry you are unhappy with the dictionary defintions I've posted, but hey, reality is like that.

Like all Darwinians the sport of correcting errors that are not actually errors might get you a little friendly backslapping from your cohorts but it sends your arguments into a downward spiral.

empty insult, wrapped in typical word salad.

You bought a lemon, that's why it keeps breaking down on you. Darwinism is riddled with flaws and faults, the most glaring is the naturalistic assumptions that have always been at the heart of Modernism, a categorical rejection of the supernatural, aka miracles. Should you come to an honest conclusion you will end up right back where it all started and find the definition has not changed.

Have a nice day

empty insult, wrapped in typical word salad.



Definitions. That's what dictionaries are for.

Take care-

Papias

 

[mark kennedy]

You really shouldn't be getting your theology from secular sources and you will never understand the science of evolution by repeating the fallacious arguments of Darwinians. If you want to talk about Darwinian natural selection we can discuss that, if you want to discuss the cause of sin and death the Scriptures have an abundant witness regarding that topic. If you want to take up the topic of Darwinism or Hamartology that's fine but if you conflate the two you will understand neither.

Darwinism was a part of, 'the movement at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries that sought to adapt doctrine to the supposed requirements of modern thought'. (108) Theistic Evolution does not differ from Darwinism in any meaningful way. If it did you would be subjected to the same ridicule Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents always have been, at least since the late 19th century. Until the advent of Darwinism there was no conflict of ID and Creationism with natural science and there was no such thing as Theistic Evolution. The only reason Darwinism has survived is because it's equivocated with the genuine article of science and when it can no longer do that it's exposed for the false assumption that it is.

Ok, first we snip the inflammatory spam, then we look at the quote taken out of context:

While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens.
​

Then the Popes dire warning regarding the dangers of Modernists like Theistic Evolutionists:

1. Christian culture being attacked on all sides
2. men easily persuade themselves in such matters that what they do not wish to believe is false or at least doubtful
5.Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all things,
6. Such fictitious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy
7. There is also a certain historicism, which attributing value only to the events of man's life, overthrows the foundation of all truth and absolute law, both on the level of philosophical speculations and especially to Christian dogmas.
10. desirous of novelty, and fearing to be considered ignorant of recent scientific findings, try to withdraw themselves from the sacred Teaching Authority and are accordingly in danger of gradually departing from revealed truth and of drawing others along with them into error.
11. some questioned whether the traditional apologetics of the Church did not constitute an obstacle rather than a help to the winning of souls for Christ
12 the removal of which would bring about the union of all, but only to their destruction.
17. things (truths of the faith) may be replaced by conjectural notions and by some formless and unstable tenets of a new philosophy, tenets which, like the flowers of the field, are in existence today and die tomorrow;
22. For some go so far as to pervert the sense of the Vatican Council's definition that God is the author of Holy Scripture, and they put forward again the opinion, already often condemned, which asserts that immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters.
28. These and like errors, it is clear, have crept in among certain of Our sons who are deceived by imprudent zeal for souls or by false science. To them We are compelled with grief to repeat once again truths already well known, and to point out with solicitude clear errors and dangers of error.​

Humani Generis

The RCC definition from Modernism from New Advent:

Modernism: "the critique of our supernatural knowledge according to the false postulates of contemporary philosophy". (Modernism, New Advent. see 'The essential error of Modernism') ​

Wow, you know what that sounds like?

"All change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition." (Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species)​

Return to the The orange definition:

natural selection

noun the process by which forms of life having traits that better enable them to adapt to specific environmental pressures, as predators, changes in climate, or competition for food or mates, will tend to survive and reproduce in greater numbers than others of their kind, thus ensuring the perpetuation of those favorable traits in succeeding generations.

A pretty standard definition that includes population and environmental changes and other things as factors. Then there's reproductive success, a mainstay of Darwinian Natural Selection and no where in this definition are we seeing the a priori assumption of universal common descent.

Modernism as you yourself defined it:

modernism — n modern tendencies, characteristics, thoughts, etc, or the support of thesesomething typical of contemporary life or thought See International Style a 20th-century divergence in the arts from previous traditions, esp in architecture ( capital ) RC Church the movement at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries that sought to adapt doctrine to the supposed requirements of modern thought​

And now your down to spam and flaming ad hominem attacks which is where you always end up. That's how I know when your finally beat, you have nothing else. That's why I demand definitions from you guys because it forces you to actually learn what the words mean, whether you like it or not, believe it or not, whether you want to admit it or not.

Then I will remind you guys of the definitions that your pedantic rhetoric failed to suppress, deny and shamelessly ridicule:

yo&#770;m (yome Strong's H3117 &#1497;&#1493;&#1501; ) - From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literally (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverbially)​

Sorry Mark none of those verse defines day as "evening plus morning equals one day". Neither does Strong's dictionary. I have come across that phrase a number of times from Creationists, it seem to be doing the rounds. What I am asking is where it comes from. Where is day defined as "evening plus morning equals one day"?

So I repeat the substantive source material from relevant Christian scholarship to counter your pedantic denial:

yo&#770;m (yome Strong's H3117 &#1497;&#1493;&#1501; ) - From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literally (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverbially)​

Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Definitions &#1497;&#1493;&#1501;:

1. day, time, year

a. day (as opposed to night)
b. day (24 hour period)​

1. as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1
2. as a division of time 1b

c. a working day, a day's journey
d. days, lifetime (pl.)
e. time, period (general)
f. year
g. temporal references​

1. today
2. yesterday
3. tomorrow
Origin: from an unused root meaning to be hot​

And the evening and the morning were the first day. (Gen. 1:5)
And the evening and the morning were the second day. (Gen. 1:8)
And the evening and the morning were the third day. (Gen. 1:13)
And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. (Gen. 1:19)
And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. (Gen. 1:23)
And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. (Gen. 1:31)
And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made (Gen. 2:2)​

Conclusively and definitively proving that evening plus morning equals one day, seven days equals one week, thus Creation Week.

You now know what the Catholic Church teaches regarding Modernism just as Assyrian now knows that whenever "day" is defined by 1, 2, 3, 4, etc., in Scripture, it is talking about a literal day.

No matter how many times you guys are refuted you just come back with the same failed, fallacious rhetoric. That's because you have nothing else.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Assyrian]

Because it's the truth and it's been qualified and quantified from multiple sources including the clear meaning of the text itself and you just make the same erroneous statement over and over again. You've done this as long as you've been posting here and it's asinine.

You are extra ordinarily pedantic, evening plus morning equals a day, the ordinal designations of the first day, the second day...etc. Lexicons, dictionaries, concordances and just the clear unmitigated, uncomplicated language of the text and you make the same tired, erroneous statements again and again and again.

I don't know what you think your doing but the Abbot and Costello rhetoric isn't working. Get some new material dude, making the same erroneous statement over and over isn't going to make it true, it just reveals something about you.

Have a nice day
Mark

Sorry Mark you haven't come up with any basis from the text or from commentaries to justify you claim:

it's defined as evening plus morning equals one day.
​

Claiming you have or comparing me to Abbot and Costello doesn't count. I don't know why you won't simply admit it's wrong. It's not like you would have to give up Creationism just because you discovered one Creationist argument was bogus.

 

[Assyrian]

So I repeat the substantive source material from relevant Christian scholarship to counter your pedantic denial:

yo&#770;m (yome Strong's H3117 &#1497;&#1493;&#1501; ) - From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literally (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverbially)​

Nope. Strong doesn't define day with the equation "evening plus morning equals one day." He describes literal days running from sunrise to sunset for day as in daytime, and from sunset to sunset for the full 24 hour day. He never says "evening plus morning equals one day."

Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Definitions &#1497;&#1493;&#1501;:

1. day, time, year

a. day (as opposed to night)
b. day (24 hour period)​

1. as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1
2. as a division of time 1b

c. a working day, a day's journey
d. days, lifetime (pl.)
e. time, period (general)
f. year
g. temporal references​

1. today
2. yesterday
3. tomorrow
Origin: from an unused root meaning to be hot
​

Again BDB doesn't mention your equation "evening plus morning equals one day".

And the evening and the morning were the first day. (Gen. 1:5)
And the evening and the morning were the second day. (Gen. 1:8)
And the evening and the morning were the third day. (Gen. 1:13)
And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. (Gen. 1:19)
And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. (Gen. 1:23)
And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. (Gen. 1:31)
And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made (Gen. 2:2)

Conclusively and definitively proving that evening plus morning equals one day, seven days equals one week, thus Creation Week.

Although you seem to include them with Brown, Driver Briggs, they verses aren't from BDB. What you have there are Genesis quotations from the King James bible. This is probably where a KJV reading Creationist first got the idea of defining day with the equation "evening plus morning equals one day." Whether it was a bad translation on the part of the AV translators or Creationists misunderstanding the archaic English of the King James, a good modern translation will show you that this isn't what the text means. Gen 1:8 And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

You now know what the Catholic Church teaches regarding Modernism just as Assyrian now knows that whenever "day" is defined by 1, 2, 3, 4, etc., in Scripture, it is talking about a literal day.

Another popular Creationist fallacy. Language simply does not work that way. Literal usage of language does not limit how language can be used figuratively. Luke 13:32 And he said to them, "Go and tell that fox, 'Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I finish my course.

No matter how many times you guys are refuted you just come back with the same failed, fallacious rhetoric. That's because you have nothing else.

Have a nice day
Mark

I'm still waiting for a legitimate scholarly source for your equation.

 

[Achilles6129]

I'm sorry? How exactly do "evening and morning" not describe a day?

 

[Achilles6129]

That is still not the equation based definition of day Mark gave us

It means day, it's defined as evening plus morning equals one day.
​

Hosea 6:2 After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him.

Isn't this a reference to Christ being resurrected on the third day?

Look at Ezekiel 4&5 where Ezekiel fasts on his side for certain numbers of days. But the meaning of the days are the number of years israel and Judah would b punished. Ezek 4:5 For I assign to you a number of days, 390 days, equal to the number of the years of their punishment. So long shall you bear the punishment of the house of Israel.

...and didn't Ezekiel literally fast for those many days...?

Or look at the parable of the labourers in the vineyard, where we have numbered hours. Matt 20:3-6 And going out about the third hour he saw others standing idle in the marketplace... Going out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour, he did the same... And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing. But this is a parable. If days with numbers have to be literal, shouldn't the same thing apply to hours with numbers? Incidentally the parable also mentions day evening and morning.

Right...but the words themselves in the parable are to be taken literally. And, it's clearly a parable, while Genesis is not. You still haven't proven your point.

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm sorry? How exactly do "evening and morning" not describe a day?

He is begging the question, aka arguing in circles. Darwinian logic is riddled with this kind of fallacious reasoning. That's why it is so important to discern the difference between Darwinian naturalistic assumptions and evolution as it is defined scientifically since their whole worldview is predicated on equivocating the two.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Sayre]

He is begging the question, aka arguing in circles. Darwinian logic is riddled with this kind of fallacious reasoning. That's why it is so important to discern the difference between Darwinian naturalistic assumptions and evolution as it is defined scientifically since their whole worldview is predicated on equivocating the two.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Talking about equivocating... what on earth is darwinian logic, and why are you conflating someone's position on the diversity of the species with their ability to use logic?

Fail.