POLL: Which of these elements of the creation story do you believe?

[rakovsky]

Yes the earth's age is under 10,000 years old and the days were 7 x 24 hour days. The only person playing games right now is you.

Sorry, I thought that you were still asserting that the results of #2 somehow supported your point.

I thought you were repeating your disagreement with me when you objected to my words in Post #139:

Post 139: "Based on the poll half of people who think Adam came directly from clay say it [the length of each day in Gen. 1] was not necessarily 24 hours."
I admit I am now off by a bit - it's not "half" , but 61.5%. Earlier in the poll results, it was half though (5 out of ten people who chose #5 chose #2).

POLL RESULTS:

1. 2. The earth's age is under 10,000 years old, or the 7 days of creation were in c.24 hour periods.
   16 vote(s)
   29.1% OF ALL RESPONDANTS
   
2. 5. God made man directly out of the earth instead of using Evolution through lower mammalian classes
   26 vote(s)
   47.3% OF AL RESPONDANTS

Still not sure if you are playing with me though, based on your rejection of what I said in message 139. Some people are masters of this on the internet. Your rejection that God made the sun on Day 4 when it says that God made the great light on Day 4 would be pretty good gaming.

 

[OzSpen]

Yes the earth's age is under 10,000 years old and the days were 7 x 24 hour days. The only person playing games right now is you.

Stan,

There are conservative Christian scholars who disagree with your conclusions here. They are open to the old earth view. These scholars include Gleason Archer, William Lane Craig, Norman Geisler, Hugh Ross, C S Lewis, B B Warfield, etc. Links to the writings of these Christian writers can be found at: http://www.reasons.org/articles/notable-christians-open-to-an-old-universe-old-earth-perspective

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

No, he doesn't. He makes some claims, and doesn't back them up. In fact, he's listed by the evidence-denier ICR as "approved", along with sheisters like Austin. http://www.icr.org/article/young-earth-creationist-bibliography/

It's clear that it does mean "flat circle", because of other Biblical use.

The Hebrew word that is used in Isaiah 44:22 (חוּג, chug) does not at all imply a spherical earth. The root word only occurs in the Hebrew Bible once as a verb (Job 26:10). In nominal forms, the same root occurs four times, three as the noun חוּג (chug; Job 22:14, Prov 8:27, Isa 40:22), and once as the noun מְחוּגׇה(mechugah; Isa 44:13). This term refers to a "circle instrument," a device used to make a circle, what we call a compass.​

From http://www.crivoice.org/circle.html

In fact, there is a Hebrew word for "sphere" or ball, which is "dur". Why wasn't that word used? Because "sphere" wasn't meant.

Which is a good thing. After all - the other dozens of verses show a flat earth. If this one did say "ball", it would be in contradiction to the rest.

In Christ-

Papias

Papias,

I have found H C Leupold to be a faithful expositor, but I have not read all of his commentary on Genesis. I read the portions I need.

However, why don't you try this link for evidence that the earth is not flat: '10 Easy Ways You Can Tell For Yourself That The Earth Is Round' (Australian Popular Science, Jan 27, 2016)

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Wow, great job, Oz. You accepted that the Bible does not specify the length of days AND you proved your view using a foundational Christian theologian.

Sarcasm is a pathetic way to address the evidence I provided.

 

[StanJ]

Stan,

There are conservative Christian scholars who disagree with your conclusions here. They are open to the old earth view. These scholars include Gleason Archer, William Lane Craig, Norman Geisler, Hugh Ross, C S Lewis, B B Warfield, etc. Links to the writings of these Christian writers can be found at: http://www.reasons.org/articles/notable-christians-open-to-an-old-universe-old-earth-perspective

Oz

And as you well know Oz, I really don't care about the scholars that disagree with me. I'm not debating them I'm debating others on this thread.

 

[rakovsky]

Sarcasm is a pathetic way to address the evidence I provided.

Yes it would be.

I actually agree with you, your evidence and St Augustine about Poll Question #2. I hit like on your message.

 

[Hoghead1]

I think you are smart to get all this down. Or maybe in fact you are just of reasonable, normal intelligence.
#1 is clearly in Genesis 1, but it only gets about 10% of votes. I think it is because modern people don't believe that. So like Luther said, they change the Bible's meaning to conform to their views. Reading "beaten out" / "hard bowl" / "raqa" as "sky" is a good example.
Jeremiah 10:9 KJV uses this Hebrew word in the underlined part: "Silver spread into plates (muruqa) is brought from Tarshish,"

For #2, it never specifies how long the day is in Genesis 1. It's hard to say that it must be exactly 24 hours when in fact even modern days are longer or shorter than 24 hours because the rotation speed changes.
I think that what I have just underlined will not even click in the heads of some people who voted #2.

For #3 and #4, the Bible repeatedly says this and people in ancient times normally believed this. Presumably, at least once when they talked about the flat earth in the Bible they must have intended to express what they believed on this topic.
However, my question to you is can it be shown in some case that one time they definitely did not mean this just as poetry, but that in one of the verses they were not talking about poetry or using a figure of speech but definitely meant it literally?

For #5, yes the Bible says Adam was made directly from clay. So if you don't agree with that factually and believe that the intended meaning is correct, you are stuck arguing that this was only meant as a myth or allegory, like one of Jesus' parables, like Ezekiel being taken to see the dry bones, or like some traditional scholars see Jonah's story. Some traditional theologians like Deacon Kuraev propose that Jonah was a real person but his story was an allegory, as it nowhere says that Jonah actually underwent these things and that this was not an allegory. They point out that there is no record of Nineveh worshiping Israel's God.

Personally, I am open to the opinion that Jonah's story was factually intended, but my impression is that it was an allegory.

I don't know about others here, but I go with the DH and no, I didn't get sucked into it online; I did a considerable amount of graduate work in biblical studies and thought of doing my doctorate in biblical studies, but then decided on theology.

 

[OzSpen]

And as you well know Oz, I really don't care about the scholars that disagree with me. I'm not debating them I'm debating others on this thread.

What did God give to the church as ministry gifts, Stan? Teachers! They are teachers from ancient times to the present and they have teachings for our consideration. See Eph 4:11-12 (ESV), 'And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ...,'

God has given us Bible teachers and Christians who are scientists who teach us. They even teach in areas where some of us may have blind spots - and that includes you and me.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Yes it would be.

I actually agree with you, your evidence and St Augustine about Poll Question #2. I hit like on your message.

Thank you for that clarification. A standard response often comes from those who don't accept his evidence: What would he know since we now have more evidence and Augustine only began learning Hebrew later in life?

On this thread and in other CF.com threads, there has been some emphasis on the alleged contradictions between Gen 1 and 2. I considered this a little while ago, based on some interaction on this forum, and wrote a brief article: Alleged discrepancies between Genesis 1 and 2

I do not accept the JEDP authorship of the Pentateuch. See:
JEDP Documentary Hypothesis refuted

Oz

 

[rakovsky]

I don't know about others here, but I go with the DH

What is the DH?

 

[Hoghead1]

Thank you for that clarification. A standard response often comes from those who don't accept his evidence: What would he know since we now have more evidence and Augustine only began learning Hebrew later in life.

On this thread and in other CFcom threads, there has been some emphasis on the supposed contradiction between Gen 1 and 2. I considered this a little while ago and wrote a brief article: Alleged discrepancies between Genesis 1 and 2

I do not accept the JEDP authorship of the Pentateuch. See:
JEDP Documentary Hypothesis refuted

Oz

I go with the DH. I did considerable graduate work in biblical studies, actually thought of doing my doctorate in biblical studies, because I am good with languages, but decided on theology instead. If you are looking at online "apologetic" sites, be careful. Many are run by unqualified self-appointed biblical authorities who really don't know what they are talking about. I remain convinced that genesis consists of two contradictory accounts and am including my case, below.

1. 
   
   
   When we approach the study of Scripture, I think we should be willing to step outside the small box of narration presented within the narrow confines of fundamentalist thinking about the Bible. In so doing, we must cast aside the preexisting bias that everything in Scripture has to be true, that everything happened just the way the Bible says it happened. We should approach Scripture, with an open mind. Maybe it is all dictated by God and inerrant , maybe it isn't. Let us see.
   
   
   
   Bearing the above in mind, let us proceed on to the Genesis account of creation. It is readily apparent that it stands in stark contradiction to modern scientific accounts. If we stay within the confines of the fundamentalist box, science is clearly a thing of the Devil, and that's the end of it. But is it? Perhaps there are other possibilities. Let us also explore those. For centuries, solid Bible-believing Christians have had no problem in recognizing the Bible is not an accurate geophysical witness. After all, who believes that the earth is really flat, that everything revolves around the earth, etc.? So I don't see why Genesis should be any exception. Bur wait a sec. Just how did traditional Christianity manage to step out of the fundamentalist box here? Here it is important to consider the writings of the Protestant Reformers, who lived right on the scene, right at the time when science was beginning to serious question the flat earth, etc. Let's take a peak at Calvin, for example. He followed what is called the doctrine of accommodations. Accordingly, our minds are so puny that God often has to talk “baby talk” (Calvin's term) to us, to accommodate his message to our infirmities. He wrote a major commentary on Genesis, and, in his remarks on Gen. 1:6, he emphasized that God is here to accommodate to our weaknesses and therefore, most emphatically, is not here to teach us actual astronomy.
   
   
   
   Now, about the to contradictory accounts. It is my position that we must step outside the fundamentalist box and come to the text open-minded. It is my position that there are two contradictory accounts. It is my position we must resist all the fiendish effects created within the narrow confines of the fundamentalist box to unduly smash them together and bludgeon them into one account. The best way to approach a text is to go on the plain reading. Hence, in Gen . 1, first animals are created, the man and woman together. In Gen. 2, first man, then animals, then woman. What may or may not be apparent in English translations is that there are two very different literary styles here. Gen. 1, fr example, is sing-songy, very sing-songy. Hence, Haydn wrote a major work titled
   
   “The Creation,” based solely on Gen. 1. Gen,. 2 is narrative and not very singable. If you study the Hebrew here in more detail, we are also dealing with to different authors coming from two different time periods.
   
   
   
   Let's turn to the stated content of the chronologies. As I said, a plain reading shows an obvious contradiction here. And as I said, many a fiendish attempt has been made within the fundamentalist box to smash these together. That is a favorite tactic of mode than one online self-styled apologists and also certain members in this group, no personal insult intended. So let us now go down through a list of the major devious attempts to smash the texts together and why they don't work.
   
   
   
   There is the pluperfect theory. Accordingly, all apparent contradictions can be easily explained simply by recognizing that everything in Gen. 2 should be translated in the pluperfect tense, thereby referring right back to one. So the line should read,...So God HAD created the animals,,,” So the problem is simply generated in the reader's mind simply because the English Bible has been mistranslated here. To a lay person, this might look impressive. However, if you know anything at all about Hebrew, this solution immediately falls on its face. There is no, repeat no, pluperfect tense in Hebrew.
   
   
   
   There is the two-creation theory. Accordingly, Gen. 1 and 2 refer to two different creations. Gen. 1 describes the total overall creation of the universe. Gen. 2 is purely concerned with what happened in the garden of Eden, with events that happened after the total overall creation. Looks promising. However, what is snot shown or addressed in the fundamentalist box is the fact fact this theory generates treffic problems in accounting for all the personnel involved and, in so doing g, has led to ridiculous results. A good example is the Lilith theory that was widespread among Medieval Christians and Jews. The problem was this: If we are fusing these accounts together, then there is a woman created in Gen. 1, and at the same time as Adam, who is not named, and who obviously exists in addition to Eve. Who is she? Her name is Lilith and she is Adam's first wife. She was domineering and liked riding on top of Adam when they had sex. Adam didn't like this and neither did God, as women are to be submissive. So God gave Adam a second wife, Eve, who at least stayed underneath during sex. Lilith then got mad, ran away, became a witch, and goes around terrorizing children, so that it was common to find a crib with “God save up from Lilith” written on it. Now, unless you believe in the existence of preAdamites, and the fundamentalist box does not and most Christians do not either, then this whole situation is absolutely ridiculous.
   
   
   
   There is the latent-chronology theory. Accordingly, the account is written by one author, never mind the literary differences. What he takes as the real chronology is that which is presented in Gen. 1. However, when he gets to Gen. 2, he for some reason, does not work through or explicate that chronology in its true order. Well, by that same token, why not assume his rue chronology is gen. 1 and that Gen. I is just his idea of explicating it out of order, for some reason? See, that strategy backfires. In addition, one wonders why an author would set up his chronology on one page and then on the next explicate it out of order. That sure is an awkward, messy way of explaining yourself.
   
   
   
   Now if any of you readers have in mind a better solution, I and other biblical scholars would like to hear it.
   
   
   
   Another problem with the Genesis account is that it does not make it clear how God creates. Some will say it definitely means creatio ex nihilo. But God created Adam out of dust, not out of nothing. God created Eve out of Adam's rib, not out of nothing. God creates the adult out of the child, not our of nothing. The opening of the Genesis account is ambiguous here. Maybe god creates out of nothing, but maybe out of some preexistence chaos.

 

[OzSpen]

I don't know about others here, but I go with the DH and no, I didn't get sucked into it online; I did a considerable amount of graduate work in biblical studies and thought of doing my doctorate in biblical studies, but then decided on theology.

By DH do you mean Digital Humanities? If so, what do you mean? Are you talking about studying humanities online?

Oz

 

[Hoghead1]

What is the DH?

The Documentary Hypothesis. The concept that the Pentateuch, the first five books of teh Bible, represent a synthesis of at least four earlier sources, other than Moses.

 

[rakovsky]

I go with the DH. I did considerable graduate work in biblical studies, actually thought of doing my doctorate in biblical studies, because I am good with languages, but decided on theology instead. If you are looking at online "apologetic" sites, be careful. Many are run by unqualified self-appointed biblical authorities who really don't know what they are talking about. I remain convinced that genesis consists of two contradictory accounts and am including my case, below.

1. 
   
   
   When we approach the study of Scripture, I think we should be willing to step outside the small box of narration presented within the narrow confines of fundamentalist thinking about the Bible. In so doing, we must cast aside the preexisting bias that everything in Scripture has to be true, that everything happened just the way the Bible says it happened. We should approach Scripture, with an open mind. Maybe it is all dictated by God and inerrant , maybe it isn't. Let us see.
   
   
   
   Bearing the above in mind, let us proceed on to the Genesis account of creation. It is readily apparent that it stands in stark contradiction to modern scientific accounts. If we stay within the confines of the fundamentalist box, science is clearly a thing of the Devil, and that's the end of it. But is it? Perhaps there are other possibilities. Let us also explore those. For centuries, solid Bible-believing Christians have had no problem in recognizing the Bible is not an accurate geophysical witness. After all, who believes that the earth is really flat, that everything revolves around the earth, etc.? So I don't see why Genesis should be any exception. Bur wait a sec. Just how did traditional Christianity manage to step out of the fundamentalist box here? Here it is important to consider the writings of the Protestant Reformers, who lived right on the scene, right at the time when science was beginning to serious question the flat earth, etc. Let's take a peak at Calvin, for example. He followed what is called the doctrine of accommodations. Accordingly, our minds are so puny that God often has to talk “baby talk” (Calvin's term) to us, to accommodate his message to our infirmities. He wrote a major commentary on Genesis, and, in his remarks on Gen. 1:6, he emphasized that God is here to accommodate to our weaknesses and therefore, most emphatically, is not here to teach us actual astronomy.
   
   
   
   Now, about the to contradictory accounts. It is my position that we must step outside the fundamentalist box and come to the text open-minded. It is my position that there are two contradictory accounts. It is my position we must resist all the fiendish effects created within the narrow confines of the fundamentalist box to unduly smash them together and bludgeon them into one account. The best way to approach a text is to go on the plain reading. Hence, in Gen . 1, first animals are created, the man and woman together. In Gen. 2, first man, then animals, then woman. What may or may not be apparent in English translations is that there are two very different literary styles here. Gen. 1, fr example, is sing-songy, very sing-songy. Hence, Haydn wrote a major work titled
   
   “The Creation,” based solely on Gen. 1. Gen,. 2 is narrative and not very singable. If you study the Hebrew here in more detail, we are also dealing with to different authors coming from two different time periods.
   
   
   
   Let's turn to the stated content of the chronologies. As I said, a plain reading shows an obvious contradiction here. And as I said, many a fiendish attempt has been made within the fundamentalist box to smash these together. That is a favorite tactic of mode than one online self-styled apologists and also certain members in this group, no personal insult intended. So let us now go down through a list of the major devious attempts to smash the texts together and why they don't work.
   
   
   
   There is the pluperfect theory. Accordingly, all apparent contradictions can be easily explained simply by recognizing that everything in Gen. 2 should be translated in the pluperfect tense, thereby referring right back to one. So the line should read,...So God HAD created the animals,,,” So the problem is simply generated in the reader's mind simply because the English Bible has been mistranslated here. To a lay person, this might look impressive. However, if you know anything at all about Hebrew, this solution immediately falls on its face. There is no, repeat no, pluperfect tense in Hebrew.
   
   
   
   There is the two-creation theory. Accordingly, Gen. 1 and 2 refer to two different creations. Gen. 1 describes the total overall creation of the universe. Gen. 2 is purely concerned with what happened in the garden of Eden, with events that happened after the total overall creation. Looks promising. However, what is snot shown or addressed in the fundamentalist box is the fact fact this theory generates treffic problems in accounting for all the personnel involved and, in so doing g, has led to ridiculous results. A good example is the Lilith theory that was widespread among Medieval Christians and Jews. The problem was this: If we are fusing these accounts together, then there is a woman created in Gen. 1, and at the same time as Adam, who is not named, and who obviously exists in addition to Eve. Who is she? Her name is Lilith and she is Adam's first wife. She was domineering and liked riding on top of Adam when they had sex. Adam didn't like this and neither did God, as women are to be submissive. So God gave Adam a second wife, Eve, who at least stayed underneath during sex. Lilith then got mad, ran away, became a witch, and goes around terrorizing children, so that it was common to find a crib with “God save up from Lilith” written on it. Now, unless you believe in the existence of preAdamites, and the fundamentalist box does not and most Christians do not either, then this whole situation is absolutely ridiculous.
   
   
   
   There is the latent-chronology theory. Accordingly, the account is written by one author, never mind the literary differences. What he takes as the real chronology is that which is presented in Gen. 1. However, when he gets to Gen. 2, he for some reason, does not work through or explicate that chronology in its true order. Well, by that same token, why not assume his rue chronology is gen. 1 and that Gen. I is just his idea of explicating it out of order, for some reason? See, that strategy backfires. In addition, one wonders why an author would set up his chronology on one page and then on the next explicate it out of order. That sure is an awkward, messy way of explaining yourself.
   
   
   
   Now if any of you readers have in mind a better solution, I and other biblical scholars would like to hear it.
   
   
   
   Another problem with the Genesis account is that it does not make it clear how God creates. Some will say it definitely means creatio ex nihilo. But God created Adam out of dust, not out of nothing. God created Eve out of Adam's rib, not out of nothing. God creates the adult out of the child, not our of nothing. The opening of the Genesis account is ambiguous here. Maybe god creates out of nothing, but maybe out of some preexistence chaos.

You already posted all that before on this thread. Next time just post a link.

 

[Hoghead1]

Please don't place the blame at the feet of modernists (I'm not a modernist or postmodernist supporter). Take St Augustine of Hippo (AD 354-430) as an example:

Augustine in connection with the days of Genesis 1 stated: 'What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive' (The City of God, Book 11, chap.6).

Oz

Actually, Augustine argued that you should not take Genesis literally. The reason is that God does not act through movements in time. Hence, the whole of creation was done in an instant, poof, just like that. The process was not spread over seven days. The reason why Genesis says six days is simply because God has to accommodate himself to our feeble intellects that are stuck on time.

 

[StanJ]

What did God give to the church as ministry gifts, Stan? Teachers! They are teachers from ancient times to the present and they have teachings for our consideration. See Eph 4:11-12 (ESV), 'And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ...,'
God has given us Bible teachers and Christians who are scientists who teach us. They even teach in areas where some of us may have blind spots - and that includes you and me.
Oz

Yes I totally agree but I'm still not debating them. He gives these offices to teach the church at the moment. Because the church keeps on growing people keep on dying and new teachers keep on coming up. That is the circle of life my friend.

 

[mark kennedy]

It says in those verses that on day 4 "God made two lights", not "God allowed the two lights to shine through".
This is what someone says when they are doing a great job playing games with me.
If you are for real, go read the commentaries I linked to saying what those terms mean.

There is no reason to conclude that the sun and moon and stars did not exist prior to day four. Everything is based on a narrative based on a perspective from the face of the earth. This is no game, it's unbelief examining a miracle. Do you believe in miracles?

 

[StanJ]

Sorry, I thought that you were still asserting that the results of #2 somehow supported your point. I thought you were repeating your disagreement with me when you objected to my words in Post #139:
Your rejection that God made the sun on Day 4 when it says that God made the great light on Day 4 would be pretty good gaming.

Again just another reason why I keep on asking you if English is your primary language?
Genesis 1:1 is the creation of the entire physical universe.
Genesis 1:3-5 is where God created light, on the same day 1. We have the same light to this very day... It's called sunlight, hence he literally lit up the sun. Given this scenario are you trying to say that God created a second set of planets on day 4? Obviously that can't be the reality so your left with an inescapable conclusion. I have already given you that conclusion.

 

[rakovsky]

There is no reason to conclude that the sun and moon and stars did not exist prior to day four.

Calvin says otherwise, since he considers that the sun was made on Day 4, and that the light spoken of on Day 1 did come before the sun was made:

Let there be light

It did not, however, happen from inconsideration or by accident, that the light preceded the sun and the moon. To nothing are we more prone than to tie down the power of God to those instruments the agency of which he employs. The sun an moon supply us with light: And, according to our notions we so include this power to give light in them, that if they were taken away from the world, it would seem impossible for any light to remain. Therefore the Lord, by the very order of the creation, bears witness that he holds in his hand the light, which he is able to impart to us without the sun and moon.

Moreover, it did not happen fortuitously, that herbs and trees were created before the sun and moon. We now see, indeed, that the earth is quickened by the sun to cause it to bring forth its fruits; nor was God ignorant of this law of nature, which he has since ordained: but in order that we might learn to refer all things to him he did not then make use of the sun or moon.

....
Let there be lights
Moses passes onwards to the fourth day, on which the stars were made. God had before created the light, but he now institutes a new order in nature, that the sun should be the dispenser of diurnal light, and the moon and stars should shine by night.... . For Moses relates nothing else than that God ordained certain instruments to diffuse through the earth, by reciprocal changes, that light which had been previously created. The only difference is this, that the light was before dispersed, but now proceeds from lucid bodies; which in serving this purpose, obey the command of God.

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/calvin/genesis/1.htm

My question to you is why you are conforming the Bible to match your own beliefs about where light on earth absolutely must come from, when Bible says that on the fourth day God made the greater light [the sun] and the lesser light [the moon]?

 

[rakovsky]

Again just another reason why I keep on asking you if English is your primary language?

More potential excellent gaming: "Is English your primary language?"
But now I am starting to think that you have not been gaming. Usually gamers don't keep playing and then add negative comments like that.

I recommend for you the following article by a Young Earth Creationist:

How could the days of Genesis 1 be literal if the sun wasn’t created until the fourth day?
http://creation.com/how-could-the-d...if-the-sun-wasnt-created-until-the-fourth-day