Creationist Verses

[RightWingGirl]

Dracil, would you concur?

Let's look at it through logic . . .

Premise 1: 'The Lord created the heavens, the earth, and the seas, with all the life in them, in six days' is a statement that is to be interpreted as indicative fact.

Response: False

Premise 2: 'For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them' is a statement that is to be interpreted as indicative fact.

Response: False

Within this context Premise 1 and Premise 2 are logical equivalents. If P1 is false, P2 is false; if P2 is false, P1 is false.

Both statements are false as stated within this context.

 

[Dracil]

How about responding to my phoenix example about something being true and not fact first? Do you understand the analogy? Do you agree?

It would be nice if some of our responses to get you to understand the difference were actually acknowledged first instead of basically asking the same questions over and over again to everyone.

 

[Extirpated Wildlife]

I now know something i wish this place had. A forum to discuss the ins and outs of logic.

 

[RightWingGirl]

How about responding to my phoenix example about something being true and not fact first?

It would be nice if some of our responses to get you to understand the difference were actually acknowledged first instead of basically asking the same questions over and over again to everyone.

Promise to answer my question afterwards?

I'm sorry, I must have missed the Pheonix example. While Chaos is busy I would really like to understand where you are coming from. Where can I find it?

 

[Dracil]

I now know something i wish this place had. A forum to discuss the ins and outs of logic.

Logic doesn't matter very much when people don't agree to the premises and definitions of a debate.

 

[Dracil]

Of course. http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=21761576&postcount=20

Here's the actual post so you don't have to go back.

Actually, he didn't say it was fact and not true. He said it was true and not fact. Very different. Like how dogs are animals, but animals are not dogs.

As for how that can occur, here's an example. Phoenixes will rise up again reborn after burning to ashes. It's a true statement, but no phoenix has actually ever risen up from its ashes.

 

[RightWingGirl]

Logic doesn't matter very much when two people can't even agree to the premises and definitions of a debate.

Maybe we need a logic forum and semanics forum. <grin>

 

[chaoschristian]

I now know something i wish this place had. A forum to discuss the ins and outs of logic.

I agree whole heartedly. And I would expand it to include sub-forums on statistics, charts, and maps.

 

[chaoschristian]

Good grief, I'm a bigger blockhead than Charlie Brown.

Not until I read this post did I ever think to link the 'sevens' of Revelation to the 'seven days' of Genesis!

In my current Bible study on Revelations we learn that 'seven' is a significant symbolic number within the context of the apocalyptic genre which means 'perfection.' Basically the 'sevens' of Revelations connote God's perfect judgement.

Now, take that same meaning and apply it to Genesis and I see for the first time a new significance of all of those "and it was good"s - that the 'seven days' connote the perfection of God's Creation - and it was good.

OK, so I'm the last person in all of CF to wise up to this, but truthfully I had never read the text that way before.

I learn something new everyday on CF!

Again, Mercury, thank you!

I'm not Dracil, but I believe that verse is true yet not fact in much the same way as this verse:

"Then I heard a loud voice from the temple telling the seven angels, 'Go and pour out on the earth the seven bowls of the wrath of God.' " (Revelation 16:1, ESV)

RightWingGirl, do you think that God's wrath will (or was) literally placed into seven literal bowls? Do you see how even if this verse isn't providing literal facts, that doesn't make it false?

I interpret the seven days of Genesis 1 and the seven bowls of Revelation 16 similarly. Both sets of seven items are symbolic, literary containers used to relate true events no human had yet witnessed to a fallible, human audience. The structure, sequence and nature of the account has literary significance. Creation could have just as easily been described with seven trumpets as seven days, but by using days the inspired author reiterated the Sabbath rest that God first revealed at Sinai.

The accounts of the days and the bowls are both true, but neither is a bland historical record. They're far more than that.

 

[RightWingGirl]

THank you Dracil!

Actually, he didn't say it was fact and not true. He said it was true and not fact. Very different. Like how dogs are animals, but animals are not dogs.

As for how that can occur, here's an example. Phoenixes will rise up again reborn after burning to ashes. It's a true statement, but no phoenix has actually ever risen up from its ashes.

The Pheonix will rise after burning to ashes. The Pheonix is a mythological bird, that never has, no never will, as far as we know, rise from the ashes. To say that the Pheonix will rise after burning assumes several things.

A. There is a Pheonix
B. It is capable of being burnt to ashes, and then coming to life again.
Both of these assumptions are false, and the statement The Pheonix will rise after burning to ashes. is, as touching reality, false. (Not true)

However your example is myth, and we are speaking of words that God wrote in solid stone with his finger, the very words of God.

 

[RightWingGirl]

I agree whole heartedly. And I would expand it to include sub-forums on statistics, charts, and maps.

Chaos, did you see my question? I think it slipped onto another page...

If you wouldn't mind, Sir, I have another question. What do you think the average Hebrew at the time this was written, without the knowledge of modern science, would have thought that this meant;
'For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them'"

 

[The Lady Kate]

However your example is myth, and we are speaking of words that God wrote in solid stone with his finger, the very words of God.

Are you referring to the Bible as "written in solid stone with His finger?"

 

[Dracil]

THank you Dracil!



The Pheonix will rise after burning to ashes. The Pheonix is a mythological bird, that never has, no never will, as far as we know, rise from the ashes. To say that the Pheonix will rise after burning assumes several things.

A. There is a Pheonix
B. It is capable of being burnt to ashes, and then coming to life again.
Both of these assumptions are false, and the statement The Pheonix will rise after burning to ashes. is, as touching reality, false. (Not true)

However your example is myth, and we are speaking of words that God wrote in solid stone with his finger, the very words of God.

Actually, the statement doesn't assume those. What it assumes is that within the phoenix mythology, phoenixes are capable of being burnt to ashes and coming back to life. Same as how silver bullets will kill werewolves. No werewolves exist in real life, but it is still true that werewolves can be killed by silver bullets, but it's not a fact. Unfortunately, if you disagree with this, then we've come to a deadlock and have to agree to disagree, as we'll end up talking past each other.

Also, you're now assuming the Bible itself is not myth. From what I understand, back when it was written (as with many other cultures), they didn't actually have the concept of a difference between myth and reality that we possess now.

 

[RightWingGirl]

I'm not Dracil, but I believe that verse is true yet not fact in much the same way as this verse:

"Then I heard a loud voice from the temple telling the seven angels, 'Go and pour out on the earth the seven bowls of the wrath of God.' " (Revelation 16:1, ESV)

RightWingGirl, do you think that God's wrath will (or was) literally placed into seven literal bowls? Do you see how even if this verse isn't providing literal facts, that doesn't make it false?

I interpret the seven days of Genesis 1 and the seven bowls of Revelation 16 similarly. Both sets of seven items are symbolic, literary containers used to relate true events no human had yet witnessed to a fallible, human audience. The structure, sequence and nature of the account has literary significance. Creation could have just as easily been described with seven trumpets as seven days, but by using days the inspired author reiterated the Sabbath rest that God first revealed at Sinai.

The accounts of the days and the bowls are both true, but neither is a bland historical record. They're far more than that.

It is physically possible for God to create the universe in six days, six hours, six minutes--what will you. It is not phsically possible to put wrath, which is an emotion, into a bowl. I belive the bowls are symbolic.

WHat do you think the days are symbolic of?

 

[The Lady Kate]

It is physically possible for God to create the universe in six days, six hours, six minutes--what will you. It is not phsically possible to put wrath, which is an emotion, into a bowl. I belive the bowls are symbolic.

WHat do you think the days are symbolic of?

Surely God is capable of doing something which is physically impossible...

 

[RightWingGirl]

Are you referring to the Bible as "written in solid stone with His finger?"

No, I'm sorry, I should have been more particular. We are discussing Exodus 20:11, one of the ten commandments.

 

[RightWingGirl]

Also, you're now assuming the Bible itself is not myth. From what I understand, back when it was written (as with many other cultures), they didn't actually have the concept of a difference between myth and reality that we possess now.

Do you think the Bible is a myth? The Pheonix example seems to hang on this--are we speaking of myth or reality.

Why do you think people did not used to have the concept of a myth? Could you give me a source?


Could you please answer my question? (Of page hmm....five, I think) Thanks!

 

[chaoschristian]

Thank you for your concise reply. So few people reason logically, it is good to see someone do so!

If you wouldn't mind, Sir, I have another question. What do you think the average Hebrew at the time this was written, without the knowledge of modern science, would have thought that this meant;
'For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them'

Sorry, I missed this as the font was so small I thought it was part of your signature and I ignored it.

That's a harder question to answer than the others you have put to me, and this is why: I don't know enough about the average BC era Hebrew to give an accurate answer.

However, I'll put for a few assumptions that I make when I'm reading OT scripture and trying as best as I can to interpret it:

1. That the average person at the time of writing would not have read this, but would have heard it. Significant in that we of the modern era have lost the ancient oral traditions surrounding scriptural presentation. Who knows how the texts and stories were introduced? I'm not asserting embellishment mind you, just that if you have ever had the opportunity to hear the Bible as story, you will know that the experience is different from reading the text.

2. That the average person would have experienced the reading of the text in a communal setting, rather than as an individual. Significant in that if you have ever had the experience of communal knowledge sharing you will know that that is different from individual revelation.

3. That the average person's concept of the how of things would be greatly removed from our own and that supernatural explanations would have more significance than natural ones.

4. That the average person would not be as concerned with the how of things as much as the why of things? Why do I make this assumption? Based on my experience primarily that when you are subsistance living from the earth within a community that the 'why' is much more uplifting to the soul than the 'how'. As a farmer I don't need the Genesis account to tell me how to grow food, in fact it doesn't do a very good job at that at all. But when I am weary of the toil, it is good to be reminded that the earth yields anything at all because of God's power and intention. I hope this part makes sense, its rather hard for me to put it into words.

So, those are a few of my assumptions.

What do these assumptions lead me to believe might have been the view point of a BC era Hebrew listening to those words?

That God the one true God is Creator of all, in control of all, greater than all, more mighty than all, the source of all that is within my view. So awesome is he that He created all of this in six days - now poke a stick at that you wretched Babylonian heathens!

 

[The Lady Kate]

Do you think the Bible is a myth? The Pheonix example seems to hang on this--are we speaking of myth or reality.

"Myth" doesn't necessarily mean "false," although popular use has made it seem that way.

The Bible contains myths... there's no getting around that.... as well as history, poetry, wisdom literature, and what-have-you. Knowing what's what when you're reading it isn't always easy.

Why do you think people did not used to have the concept of a myth? Could you give me a source? [/QUOTE]

Well, Any study of ancient literature will clearly show that ancient civilizations had a bad habit of mixing their history and mythology... The Egyptian Pharaohs were siad to have been descended from the Gods, and over in Sumer, Gilgamesh is listed as one of the historical kings of Uruk. Didn't Caesar also claim to be descended from the Gods? Or was it Alexander? Or both?

It's not that ancient cultures didn't know what a myth was, but they seldom saw the need to differentiate between myth and cold, hard, facts... particularly in a time when most literature was originally preserved orally... such stories have a habit of getter bigger and better with each retelling, until it finally gets preserved in a more reliable written form.

 

[RightWingGirl]

That's a harder question to answer than the others you have put to me, and this is why: I don't know enough about the average BC era Hebrew to give an accurate answer.

That God the one true God is Creator of all, in control of all, greater than all, more mighty than all, the source of all that is within my view. So awesome is he that He created all of this in six days - now poke a stick at that you wretched Babylonian heathens!

I'm sorry about the text size!!
You think that the average Hebrew would have taken it as literal, that God created all in six solar days. God, being all knowing, would know what the Hebrews would make of it, correct?
For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them'