Exodus 20:9-11 (Creation)

[Colter]

I ain't buying .. sorry ...

But that doesn't mean it isn't true, you just don't believe it.

 

[Anguspure]

There is no question that God is speaking to humans and humans are on planet earth - and that God was doing something at this location - the location of our solar system when creating the earth. So the time frame communicated is the same thus in Ex 20:11 "six days you shall labor...for in six days the Lord made" --

This is irrefutable - iron clad - locked in - written in stone equivalence for the unit of time.

This is nothing but an inference from a certain way of reading the text and locking the Creator into carrying out His activities within a solar time scale is not backed up in anyway by scripture.
In any case, time has been altering with the expansion of the universe since the time of Moses and since that time the Solar year has gained about 5 days so nothing is locked in - written in stone as far as time is concerned.

It is how he saw creation week.

So you say, but this is not backed up in scripture. To base a whole doctrine that proves to be a stumbling block to many on it is not a very good thing to do.

Only the Ten Commandments are /written/by God letter by letter.

The whole Torah is a document that we would not have except for the absolute reverence that the Rabbis have for the letter by letter accuracy of the text. The tradition is that if even one letter were to be altered from the Torah the whole of creation would be destroyed.

Only Joseph Smith claimed that his inspired text was given to him "letter by letter" - Moses never makes such a claim.

Who is Joseph Smith? The Rabbis have maintained this from before the time of Ezra.

in fact Moses is "shown" things according to the Bible - including the temple in heaven - which is used as a pattern for making the miniature model of it on earth.

Hebrews 8
4 For if He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are priests who offer the gifts according to the law; 5 who serve the copy and shadow of the heavenly things, as Moses was divinely instructed when he was about to make the tabernacle. For He said, “See that you make all things according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.”

Not "The letter shown you" but the "pattern" of the sanctuary "shown you".

And so also when Moses describes creation week and Adam's history it is not "letter by letter" Joseph-Smith-style.

Nevertheless the Torah is letter level correct and this could only have happened by direct input from the Creator. If that meant that He showed Moses a few things in the process it does not negate His direct guidance.

According to Jewish tradition - Christ is not the Messiah.

And in Mark 7:6-13 Christ flatly condemns Jewish tradition.

I disagree, Jesus is attacking the religious hypocrisy of the people here. There is a very large body Jewish scholarship that should not be discarded baby and bath water.
The fact is that the Messiah is written on every page of the Law and the Prophets and Jesus the Jewish Rabbi used this scholarship and teaching to reveal himself to the disciples on the way to Emmaus. Philip was also able to lead the Ethiopian official to Christ by means the same body of scholarship.

 

[Colter]

Your argument appears to be that KWC wrote Revelation 20 out of hatred.

Is that your position?

Yes. Whenever someone doesn't like facts that conflict with the Bible they bring out the lake of fire. Jesus said to be aware of false prophets not true prophets.

 

[Colter]

The Holy Spirit authored the Bible. 2 Peter 1:19-21.

That is the blind faith claim of bible worshipers. Jesus never said "I will send a book" to worship.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Where the King James differs from the original Hebrew, the original Hebrew is wrong.

2 Samuel 21:19 And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

How do you know that?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

That is not a quote from Ex 20:9-11 or Ex 20:8-11. This thread is about the legal code that we find there.

In that legal code - God Himself is speaking - and He says "six days YOU shall labor... for in SIX Days the LORD made the heavens and the earth the seas and all that is in them."

God was not speaking english at the time. He said "yoms", not days. The word can reference unspecified periods of time. It is not required to believe in a young earth just because of this verse.

 

[4x4toy]

But that doesn't mean it isn't true, you just don't believe it.

But it does mean I'm in harmony with God's Word as it is written .. That is all the True I need ..

 

[KWCrazy]

This is nothing but an inference from a certain way of reading the text and locking the Creator into carrying out His activities within a solar time scale is not backed up in anyway by scripture.

Alternative reality, anyone?
How is presenting the plain text of the Scriptures not backed in any way by Scripture?
How can anyone take you seriously when you post such nonsense?
The "certain way of reading the text" is actually posting the exact wording of the text.
The lengths people will go to deny the Scriptures is amazing.

 

[KWCrazy]

God was not speaking english at the time. He said "yoms", not days. The word can reference unspecified periods of time.

It assuredly can NOT mean unspecified periods of time when the days are numbered. When used as numbered days, or when specified by an evening and morning, the word Yowm means a single day 100% of the time.
Try this. Next time your boss tells you he needs a report in three days, go ahead and consider that he really means three years. So how that goes over.

 

[4x4toy]

God was not speaking english at the time. He said "yoms", not days. The word can reference unspecified periods of time. It is not required to believe in a young earth just because of this verse.

So you don't believe the Genealogy's in Luke and Mathew are accurate ?

 

[BobRyan]

The Bible has many errors but the proud deny the flaws as they see the ends justifying the means. Religion lags behind the rest of the educated world by centuries.

This is the "attack-the-bible-first" defense for faith in evolutionism.

The bible conflicts with itself let alone the facts of scientific inquiry.

I like the fact that you do not pretend that the conflict between the Bible and blind-faith evolutionism - "exists".

However as previously stated - real science (chemistry, physics, observable biology etc) is fine - it is junk-science that is condemned here.

And there is more than just a little "junk-science" in something claimed as the best evidence for evolutionism - that then even atheist evolutionists finally admit "never happened in nature". (Though it is still on display at the Smithsonian "as if" it were true - though they now have a small sign there stating that the fossil sequence on display is a total fabrication by Othaniel Marsh (probably for the sake of emotional effect)

as you already knew from my previous post on that point --

============================

Blind faith evolutionism - guess work 'IN ACTION'


From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gaylord_Simpson

G.G. Simpson -- the most influential paleontologist of the twentieth century, and a major participant in the modern evolutionary synthesis,

He was Professor of Zoology at Columbia University, and Curator of the Department of Geology and Paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History from 1945 to 1959. He was Curator of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University from 1959 to 1970, and a Professor of Geosciences at the University of Arizona until his retirement in 1982.


Caught in the act

G.G. Simpson in 1951 – evolutionism is a “done deal” and horse series is one of the clearest and most convincing example.

“The history of the horse family is still one of the clearest and most convincing for showing that organisms really have evolved. . . There really is no point nowadays in continuing to collect and to study fossils simply to determine whether or not evolution is a fact. The question has been decisively answered in the affirmative.” 2 Simpson, George G. 1951. Horses. Oxford University Press.



Outright confession –

"The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature."—G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953), p. 119.


"I admit that an awful lot of that [imaginary stories??] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in the American Museum of Natural History] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable ..."
Niles Eldredge, as quoted in Luther D Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th ed. 1988, pg 78.


========================= still nastolgic --


From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

In the 1870's, the paleontologist O.C. Marsh published a description of newly discovered horse fossils from North America. At the time, very few transitional fossils were known, apart from Archeopteryx. The sequence of horse fossils that Marsh described (and that T.H. Huxley popularized) was a striking example of evolution taking place in a single lineage. Here, one could see the fossil species "Eohippus" transformed into an almost totally different-looking (and very familiar) descendent, Equus, through a series of clear intermediates. Biologists and interested laypeople were justifiably excited.

=========================

Lesson learned.

Anyone tossing the creation text of their Bible under a bus based on the enthusiasm of that 1951 statement from Simpson - would have been totally undercut by that 1953 statement from Simpson.

Why hold the Bible hostage like that?

How could a 50 year fraud be accepted as IF it is an "observed sequence in nature" when in fact "it never happened in nature" and is "lamentable".

 

[BobRyan]

Colter said: ↑
None of this converts an Old Earth in a Y

BobRyan said: ↑
That is not a quote from Ex 20:9-11 or Ex 20:8-11. This thread is about the legal code that we find there.

In that legal code - God Himself is speaking - and He says "six days YOU shall labor... for in SIX Days the LORD made the heavens and the earth the seas and all that is in them."

God was not speaking english at the time. He said "yoms", not days. The word can reference unspecified periods of time. It is not required to believe in a young earth just because of this verse.

Colte - at least "admits" to the contradiction -- as did Darwin admit to it, and so also does Dawkins, P.Z. Meyers etc.

you are sticking with 'creationists can't read' - as if that is believable.

So fine then we turn to - the atheist/agnostic professors for Hebrew and OT studies in all world-class universities. Let's hear what they have to say.
=====================================

Atheists often don't mind "admitting" to what the Bible says - they simply reject what it says. As in rejecting the virgin birth, the bodily ascension of Christ, the miracles of the bible and in this example they freely admit to what the Bible says - while rejecting it as 'truth'.

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

=======================

That is the opinion of professors not at all inclined to accept the 7 day creation week that we find in Gen 1:2-2:3 yet they can still 'read' and point to the author's intent - whether they agree with the author or not.

 

[Colter]

This is the "attack-the-bible-first" defense for faith in evolutionism.



I like the fact that you do not pretend that the conflict between the Bible and blind-faith evolutionism - "exists".

However as previously stated - real science (chemistry, physics, observable biology etc) is fine - it is junk-science that is condemned here.

And there is more than just a little "junk-science" in something claimed as the best evidence for evolutionism - that then even atheist evolutionists finally admit "never happened in nature". (Though it is still on display at the Smithsonian "as if" it were true - though they now have a small sign there stating that the fossil sequence on display is a total fabrication by Othaniel Marsh (probably for the sake of emotional effect)

as you already knew from my previous post on that point --

============================

Blind faith evolutionism - guess work 'IN ACTION'


From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gaylord_Simpson

G.G. Simpson -- the most influential paleontologist of the twentieth century, and a major participant in the modern evolutionary synthesis,

He was Professor of Zoology at Columbia University, and Curator of the Department of Geology and Paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History from 1945 to 1959. He was Curator of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University from 1959 to 1970, and a Professor of Geosciences at the University of Arizona until his retirement in 1982.


Caught in the act

G.G. Simpson in 1951 – evolutionism is a “done deal” and horse series is one of the clearest and most convincing example.

“The history of the horse family is still one of the clearest and most convincing for showing that organisms really have evolved. . . There really is no point nowadays in continuing to collect and to study fossils simply to determine whether or not evolution is a fact. The question has been decisively answered in the affirmative.” 2 Simpson, George G. 1951. Horses. Oxford University Press.



Outright confession –

"The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature."—G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953), p. 119.


"I admit that an awful lot of that [imaginary stories??] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in the American Museum of Natural History] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable ..."
Niles Eldredge, as quoted in Luther D Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th ed. 1988, pg 78.


========================= still nastolgic --


From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

In the 1870's, the paleontologist O.C. Marsh published a description of newly discovered horse fossils from North America. At the time, very few transitional fossils were known, apart from Archeopteryx. The sequence of horse fossils that Marsh described (and that T.H. Huxley popularized) was a striking example of evolution taking place in a single lineage. Here, one could see the fossil species "Eohippus" transformed into an almost totally different-looking (and very familiar) descendent, Equus, through a series of clear intermediates. Biologists and interested laypeople were justifiably excited.

=========================

Lesson learned.

Anyone tossing the creation text of their Bible under a bus based on the enthusiasm of that 1951 statement from Simpson - would have been totally undercut by that 1953 statement from Simpson.

Why hold the Bible hostage like that?

How could a 50 year fraud be accepted as IF it is an "observed sequence in nature" when in fact "it never happened in nature" and is "lamentable".

Science isn't blind faith, the YEC story constructed by humiliated exiled Hebrew priest in Babylon is blind faith.

 

[4x4toy]

Science isn't blind faith, the YEC story constructed by humiliated exiled Hebrew priest in Babylon is blind faith.

Then you construct your own bible and submit it to God .. You can answer and include all the questions put forth to Job while you're at it ..

 

[Colter]

 

[4x4toy]

Dude , I've seen ink blots .. Bwahahaha

A picture is like a thousand years , right ? lol

 

[Kenny'sID]

God was not speaking english at the time. He said "yoms", not days. The word can reference unspecified periods of time.

You mean just like the word "day" in English can mean something other than a single day, as in "in the days of old" or "Back in the day"?

Meaning your comment means nothing and it changes nothing. As was already mentioned, it still means a 24hr day in context to the subject.

I have to say, that comment looked a lot like attempted trickery.

 

[Colter]

Whatever happened to Xalith who stated the thread?

 

[BobRyan]

Science isn't blind faith,

Agreed.

But junk-science that "never happened in nature" - is.

the YEC story constructed by humiliated exiled Hebrew priest in Babylon is blind faith.

Here again - your "attack the Bible so I can believe in evolutionism" approach here is "much predicted".

Darwin himself admits that this is how it must be.

 

[BobRyan]

Caught in the act (Watch as these atheist evolutionist scientists confess)

G.G. Simpson in 1951 – evolutionism is a “done deal” and horse series is one of the clearest and most convincing example.

“The history of the horse family is still one of the clearest and most convincing for showing that organisms really have evolved. . . There really is no point nowadays in continuing to collect and to study fossils simply to determine whether or not evolution is a fact. The question has been decisively answered in the affirmative.” 2 Simpson, George G. 1951. Horses. Oxford University Press.



Outright confession –about the fraudulent horse series on display in the Smithsonian

"The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature."—G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953), p. 119.


"I admit that an awful lot of that [imaginary stories??] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in the American Museum of Natural History] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable ..."
Niles Eldredge, as quoted in Luther D Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th ed. 1988, pg 78.

================================

How is it that the history of the horse family - on display in the Smithsonian to this very day in 2016 as an arrangement fabricated by Othaniel Marsh -- is a fossil sequence "story" declared to "have never happened in nature" in the 1950's - by their own atheist scientists.