Evolutionists win by default....

[Tawhano]

Does anybody know what the Hebrew word was that was translated to ‘day’? I don’t have my books with me right now but I am guessing it isn’t the same as the word used to denote the day in which the earth revolves around the sun. From memory I believe it denotes a measure of time. Since the sun wasn’t formed at the beginning and the earth wasn’t sent spinning around it my thought is that the 6 days could be 6 ‘unknown to us’ periods of time. Just a thought.

 

[MartinM]

IIRC, the word is 'yom', which can be used to mean either 24 hour days or some unspecified period of time.

 

[euphoric]

Today at 06:21 PM Tawhano said this in Post #21

Does anybody know what the Hebrew word was that was translated to ‘day’? I don’t have my books with me right now but I am guessing it isn’t the same as the word used to denote the day in which the earth revolves around the sun. From memory I believe it denotes a measure of time. Since the sun wasn’t formed at the beginning and the earth wasn’t sent spinning around it my thought is that the 6 days could be 6 ‘unknown to us’ periods of time. Just a thought.

Seems like the most reasonable interpretation to me, but that interpretation doesn't sell videos and seminars very well.

-brett

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 10:15 AM Follower of Christ said this in Post #18

If I am going to accept any ''theory'', it will be one that validates my bible.

And this is precisely why creationism is not a scientific position.

 

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 01:26 PM MartinM said this in Post #22

IIRC, the word is 'yom', which can be used to mean either 24 hour days or some unspecified period of time.

That is correct of the word yom alone.

It can also be further defined by the text around it such as a number or the use of terms like "a morning and an evening''

Many hebrew ''theologians'' agree that the days would be long periods of time.
BUT many reputable scholars of the actual Hebrew language have a different point of view as to the use of ''yom'' during the creation week.

 

[Cantuar]

Evidence that supports a young earth?_ Well don't be selfish, do share it with us.

Well, it was qualified as "so called evidence." Probably just as well on account of the lack of real evidence.

 

[lucaspa]

26th March 2003 at 09:46 AM Francie said this in Post #14

The Bible is the inspired word of GOD man may have written it but God told them what to write. I put nothing obove GOD! You are taking His word and putting your own interpretation on it.

Francie, are you saying God dictated the Bible word for word? Each word?  That is far beyond any theological definition of "inspired" that I have seen.  Could you please point to some Christian theologians or Biblical scholars who have this view?

And, Francie, you are putting yourself above God.  Remember, you say God created the universe.  That means that everything in the universe had to have been put there by God, doesn't it?  Where else did it come from, if not from God?  Thus Creation is the second book of God.  In it God tells you how He created.  By the evidence He left you in Creation.

The Bible tells you the who and the why of creation.  Creation itself tells you the how.

Yet what do you do? You say your interpretation is the how.  You don't let God tell you how; you tell God how He had to do it!

As I say, I admire your chutzpah in dictating to God how He had to create.  But I also wish you luck.  If there really is a Judgement Day, I think you'll need all the luck you can get, so you'd better take my best wishes with you.

 

[lucaspa]

26th March 2003 at 09:52 AM Francie said this in Post #15

And let me just say, I am Proud to be a christian!And I do take the Bible as the literal word of GOD, THat is my opinion I did not try to attack you on a personal basis why are you doing that to me? I respect you for you for your opinion. please respect me for mine>GOD BLESS

Francie, I'm glad you are proud to be a Christian. I'm certainly not trying to tell you not to be.  If I push anyone to being an atheist while trying to get them to accept evolution, then I'm not doing what I intend.  I do not want you to stop being a Christian.

What I am trying to show you are the theological consequences of your opinion. 

You think Biblical literalism is Christian and is great.  I think Biblical literalism is unChristian and a grave danger to Christianity.  It leads inevitably to the theological problems I posed for you.

I deliberately put them in personal terms not to attack you, but to dramatize the danger I think you are in.

Creationists and Biblical literalists think they are the good guys.  From everything I have seen, they are not the good guys but the bad guys.  Sorry about that.  But Biblical literalism is the greatest danger faced by Christianity, IMO, since Gnosticism.

 

[lucaspa]

26th March 2003 at 11:28 PM Ray Cho said this in Post #17 

Dismissing the first book of the Bible as "myth" or "parable" may be one convenient way to reconcile Christian faith with evolution, but I think many Christians may be giving up on the historical accuracy of Genesis too quickly. 

How about reading it as theology?

To cite one example that attempts to reconcile science with the creation account, Christian geologist Glenn Morton presents an interesting theory at www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/person.htm[/URL]. 

I'm afraid I didn't see a theory there.  Could you summarize it or point it out to me?  What I saw were crises of faith when people brought up on Biblical literalism were confronted by evidence in Creation.  Exactly what Pete Harcoff and I are saying is happening.

I believe Christians should be open to the possibility that some middle ground exists between "literal" 6-day creation and the "myth" of Genesis.  To find such a stance is not an easy or straightforward proposition, but the Bible never says that studying God's word would be easy.

There is such a middle ground; it's called reading the Bible as what it is -- a theological document -- and not as a historical or scientific document.  I suggest Bernhard Anderson, Nahum Sarna, and others.  Have you heard of the Documentary Hypothesis about Genesis? 

"To understand creation biblically the premise must be abandoned on which the "science versus religion" battle has been waged: the notion, still popularly held, that the biblical view of creation is either bad science or good science, depending on which side one takes in the controversy.  ... To say that "the earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof' is to affirm that no area of life escapes the unconditional religious concern which informs our creaturely existence.  Nevertheless, the biblical view of creation is not an effort at primitive science.  It does not purport to deal primarily with the speculative question of the origin and genesis of the earth, the question which lies properly in the domain of the science of nature.  Whatever "science" is found in the biblical creation narratives is a legacy from the cosmological speculation of Israel's neighbors and has been outmoded by the Weltbild or world-picture which modern science has brought to view."  Bernhard W. Anderson, The Earth Is The Lord's,:  An Essay on the biblical Doctrine of Creation, in Is God a Creationist?  Edited by Roland Frye, pp. 176-196.

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 10:15 AM Follower of Christ said this in Post #18

Good Choice Francie.
There plenty of reason to think that most of this so called evidence fits in to a young earth anyway.

If I am going to accept any ''theory'', it will be one that validates my bible.

As I pointed out at the start of the thread, it's not the evidence for a theory that counts, it's the evidence against a theory that is critical.  If all you look for is evidence for a theory, or evidence that "fits in to" a theory, then you will find that.  What counts is the evidence that can't possibly be there if the theory were correct.

And, as Glenn Morton shows at the website, there is evidence present that just can't be there if YEC is correct. That's why YEC and Biblical literalism was given up in before 1830.

 

[fairyshyone]

I Genesis God said six days, I am not going to dispute his word. God Bless!

I'm with Francie on this issue.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 02:00 PM fairyshyone said this in Post #31

I Genesis God said six days, I am not going to dispute his word. God Bless!

I'm with Francie on this issue.

You do dispute God.  The God who actually created.

What you are not going to do is give up your human interpretation of the Bible.  You are going to stop listening to God and listen only to yourself.

Too bad.  We can only hope that all Christians don't follow you and Francie over that cliff. Because if they do, Christianity is doomed.

 

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 01:32 PM lucaspa said this in Post #27



Francie, are you saying God dictated the Bible word for word? Each word?  That is far beyond any theological definition of "inspired" that I have seen.  Could you please point to some Christian theologians or Biblical scholars who have this view?

And, Francie, you are putting yourself above God.  Remember, you say God created the universe.  That means that everything in the universe had to have been put there by God, doesn't it?  Where else did it come from, if not from God?  Thus Creation is the second book of God.  In it God tells you how He created.  By the evidence He left you in Creation.

The Bible tells you the who and the why of creation.  Creation itself tells you the how.

Yet what do you do? You say your interpretation is the how.  You don't let God tell you how; you tell God how He had to do it!

As I say, I admire your chutzpah in dictating to God how He had to create.  But I also wish you luck.  If there really is a Judgement Day, I think you'll need all the luck you can get, so you'd better take my best wishes with you.

The absolute audacity of this post and others like it IS mind-boggling to me.

Its very nice that you use the same twisted tactics of atheists everywhere.

THERE IS NO SECOND BOOK OF GOD!!!
HIS CREATION IS FALLEN DUE TO THE VERY ARROGANCE YOU EXHIBIT IN DENYING THE SCRIPTURAL TRUTH OF 6 DAYS.

Lucaspa you and others like you are outright liars and decievers.
The bible SPECIFICALLY says 6 days.

WHO CARES WHAT YOUR THEOLOGIANS SAY
Scholars of the actual Hebrew language would tend to disagree with them and I will take their word over any self righteous theolgian.

You may admire her chutzpah, BUT I feel nothing but comtempt for your total disregard for the actual written word of God and your blatant ignorant arrogance in trying to convince someone that the text says something other than what it very plainly says.

Her interpretaion is EXACTLY GODS interpretation of 6 DAYS.
It makes no difference HOW many times you come in here to spout out ignorance, IT STILL SAYS 6 DAYS.

 

[Arikay]

Um, I dont think a personal attack was in order Follower.

Do I have to mention Jesus was a humble man?

There is a second book of creation. Its called the earth.

 

[Follower of Christ]

A SECOND BOOK.

All of a sudden, I am starting to understand where this arrogance is coming from.

Jesus was a humble man til it came to defending His fathers house.
Gods word needs defending from wolves in sheeps clothing

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 02:33 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #33

HIS CREATION IS FALLEN DUE TO THE VERY ARROGANCE YOU EXHIBIT IN DENYING THE SCRIPTURAL TRUTH OF 6 DAYS.

So His Creation is full of lies? Why would God do such a thing?

P.S. FoC, you might want to take a valium or something. You can scream "six days" until you are blue in the face, but I don't think it's going to mean much to those who don't believe Gen 1 must be taken literally.

 

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 02:56 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #36



So His Creation is full of lies? Why would God do such a thing?

Read 2 Thess. chapter 2.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 02:58 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #37

Read 2 Thess. chapter 2.

Just did. Had I been holding an irony meter, it would have gone up in smoke.

 

[Arikay]

So, its ok to personally attack people as long as its for a good reason?

"two wrongs dont make a right"

"the road to hell is paved with good intentions"

Today at 11:45 AM Follower of Christ said this in Post #35

A SECOND BOOK.

All of a sudden, I am starting to understand where this arrogance is coming from.

Jesus was a humble man til it came to defending His fathers house.
Gods word needs defending from wolves in sheeps clothing

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Let's step back an analyze this issue of a literal Gen 1 for a second.

Gen 1 says, at face value, that God made various stuff in 6 days (with different things appearing during different days).

Now, if we examine His Creation, we find that, for all intents and purposes, God did not create as per a literal, "face value" reading of Gen 1.

Which presents a dilemma. Now, there are a few possible scenarios to resolve this dilemma:

A) The evidence we find in His Creation is false;
B) The people examining this evidence are making false conclusions about it;
C) The author of Gen 1 misinterpreted what God said;
D) The author of Gen 1 is lying;
E) God is lying;
F) God does not exist;
G) Gen 1 is not meant to be taken literally.

Now, each of these scenarios carries certain consequences:

If it's A, then clearly we cannot trust anything we find in His Creation, and this also begs the question of why such evidence is false in the first place.

If it's B, then the implications are that a vast majority of the world's scientists are either incompetent or part of a vast conspiracy of some sort.

C through F have all sorts of theological implications, calling into question the very basis of Christian theology.

G has theological implications, as well, but not nearly to the extent as C thru F.

Now, my own take would rest with G for three reasons.

One, scenarios A and B require me to adopt a stance of paranoia that I just don't see any reason to adopt. Basically, I have yet to see any evidence that His Creation is full of lies, or that the vast majority of scientists are incompetent or part of a conspiracy.

Two, taking into account the target audience the Bible was written for and is still written for. Considering the average scientific knowledge of your medieval peasant, it's not surprising Gen 1 is light on details. Furthermore, I believe it's the fundamental message that is important (i.e. God made everything), and the ability to convey and pass on that message in a least obtrusive way as possible. Trying to imagine a preacher explaining quantum singularities or genetic mutation to a bunch of peasants and, well, I can see why Gen 1 is worded the way it is.